what is result and discussion in research

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• LEARNING SKILLS
• Writing a Dissertation or Thesis
• Results and Discussion

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Learning Skills:

• A - Z List of Learning Skills
• What is Learning?
• Learning Approaches
• Learning Styles
• 8 Types of Learning Styles
• Understanding Your Preferences to Aid Learning
• Lifelong Learning
• Decisions to Make Before Applying to University
• Top Tips for Surviving Student Life
• Living Online: Education and Learning
• 8 Ways to Embrace Technology-Based Learning Approaches
• Critical Thinking Skills
• Critical Thinking and Fake News
• Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories
• Critical Analysis
• Study Skills
• Exam Skills
• How to Write a Research Proposal
• Ethical Issues in Research
• Dissertation: The Introduction
• Researching and Writing a Literature Review
• Writing your Methodology
• Dissertation: Results and Discussion
• Dissertation: Conclusions and Extras

Writing Your Dissertation or Thesis eBook

Part of the Skills You Need Guide for Students .

• Research Methods
• Teaching, Coaching, Mentoring and Counselling
• Employability Skills for Graduates

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Writing your Dissertation:  Results and Discussion

When writing a dissertation or thesis, the results and discussion sections can be both the most interesting as well as the most challenging sections to write.

You may choose to write these sections separately, or combine them into a single chapter, depending on your university’s guidelines and your own preferences.

There are advantages to both approaches.

Writing the results and discussion as separate sections allows you to focus first on what results you obtained and set out clearly what happened in your experiments and/or investigations without worrying about their implications.This can focus your mind on what the results actually show and help you to sort them in your head.

However, many people find it easier to combine the results with their implications as the two are closely connected.

Check your university’s requirements carefully before combining the results and discussions sections as some specify that they must be kept separate.

Results Section

The Results section should set out your key experimental results, including any statistical analysis and whether or not the results of these are significant.

You should cover any literature supporting your interpretation of significance. It does not have to include everything you did, particularly for a doctorate dissertation. However, for an undergraduate or master's thesis, you will probably find that you need to include most of your work.

You should write your results section in the past tense: you are describing what you have done in the past.

Every result included MUST have a method set out in the methods section. Check back to make sure that you have included all the relevant methods.

Conversely, every method should also have some results given so, if you choose to exclude certain experiments from the results, make sure that you remove mention of the method as well.

If you are unsure whether to include certain results, go back to your research questions and decide whether the results are relevant to them. It doesn’t matter whether they are supportive or not, it’s about relevance. If they are relevant, you should include them.

Having decided what to include, next decide what order to use. You could choose chronological, which should follow the methods, or in order from most to least important in the answering of your research questions, or by research question and/or hypothesis.

You also need to consider how best to present your results: tables, figures, graphs, or text. Try to use a variety of different methods of presentation, and consider your reader: 20 pages of dense tables are hard to understand, as are five pages of graphs, but a single table and well-chosen graph that illustrate your overall findings will make things much clearer.

Make sure that each table and figure has a number and a title. Number tables and figures in separate lists, but consecutively by the order in which you mention them in the text. If you have more than about two or three, it’s often helpful to provide lists of tables and figures alongside the table of contents at the start of your dissertation.

Summarise your results in the text, drawing on the figures and tables to illustrate your points.

The text and figures should be complementary, not repeat the same information. You should refer to every table or figure in the text. Any that you don’t feel the need to refer to can safely be moved to an appendix, or even removed.

Make sure that you including information about the size and direction of any changes, including percentage change if appropriate. Statistical tests should include details of p values or confidence intervals and limits.

While you don’t need to include all your primary evidence in this section, you should as a matter of good practice make it available in an appendix, to which you should refer at the relevant point.

For example:

Details of all the interview participants can be found in Appendix A, with transcripts of each interview in Appendix B.

You will, almost inevitably, find that you need to include some slight discussion of your results during this section. This discussion should evaluate the quality of the results and their reliability, but not stray too far into discussion of how far your results support your hypothesis and/or answer your research questions, as that is for the discussion section.

See our pages: Analysing Qualitative Data and Simple Statistical Analysis for more information on analysing your results.

Discussion Section

This section has four purposes, it should:

• Interpret and explain your results
• Answer your research question
• Justify your approach
• Critically evaluate your study

The discussion section therefore needs to review your findings in the context of the literature and the existing knowledge about the subject.

You also need to demonstrate that you understand the limitations of your research and the implications of your findings for policy and practice. This section should be written in the present tense.

The Discussion section needs to follow from your results and relate back to your literature review . Make sure that everything you discuss is covered in the results section.

Some universities require a separate section on recommendations for policy and practice and/or for future research, while others allow you to include this in your discussion, so check the guidelines carefully.

Starting the Task

Most people are likely to write this section best by preparing an outline, setting out the broad thrust of the argument, and how your results support it.

You may find techniques like mind mapping are helpful in making a first outline; check out our page: Creative Thinking for some ideas about how to think through your ideas. You should start by referring back to your research questions, discuss your results, then set them into the context of the literature, and then into broader theory.

This is likely to be one of the longest sections of your dissertation, and it’s a good idea to break it down into chunks with sub-headings to help your reader to navigate through the detail.

Fleshing Out the Detail

Once you have your outline in front of you, you can start to map out how your results fit into the outline.

This will help you to see whether your results are over-focused in one area, which is why writing up your research as you go along can be a helpful process. For each theme or area, you should discuss how the results help to answer your research question, and whether the results are consistent with your expectations and the literature.

The Importance of Understanding Differences

If your results are controversial and/or unexpected, you should set them fully in context and explain why you think that you obtained them.

Your explanations may include issues such as a non-representative sample for convenience purposes, a response rate skewed towards those with a particular experience, or your own involvement as a participant for sociological research.

You do not need to be apologetic about these, because you made a choice about them, which you should have justified in the methodology section. However, you do need to evaluate your own results against others’ findings, especially if they are different. A full understanding of the limitations of your research is part of a good discussion section.

At this stage, you may want to revisit your literature review, unless you submitted it as a separate submission earlier, and revise it to draw out those studies which have proven more relevant.

Conclude by summarising the implications of your findings in brief, and explain why they are important for researchers and in practice, and provide some suggestions for further work.

You may also wish to make some recommendations for practice. As before, this may be a separate section, or included in your discussion.

The results and discussion, including conclusion and recommendations, are probably the most substantial sections of your dissertation. Once completed, you can begin to relax slightly: you are on to the last stages of writing!

Continue to: Dissertation: Conclusion and Extras Writing your Methodology

See also: Writing a Literature Review Writing a Research Proposal Academic Referencing What Is the Importance of Using a Plagiarism Checker to Check Your Thesis?

Research Skills

Results, discussion, and conclusion, results/findings.

The Results (or Findings) section follows the Methods and precedes the Discussion section. This is where the authors provide the data collected during their study. That data can sometimes be difficult to understand because it is often quite technical. Do not let this intimidate you; you will discover the significance of the results next.

The Discussion section follows the Results and precedes the Conclusions and Recommendations section. It is here that the authors indicate the significance of their results. They answer the question, “Why did we get the results we did?” This section provides logical explanations for the results from the study. Those explanations are often reached by comparing and contrasting the results to prior studies’ findings, so citations to the studies discussed in the Literature Review generally reappear here. This section also usually discusses the limitations of the study and speculates on what the results say about the problem(s) identified in the research question(s). This section is very important because it is finally moving towards an argument. Since the researchers interpret their results according to theoretical underpinnings in this section, there is more room for difference of opinion. The way the authors interpret their results may be quite different from the way you would interpret them or the way another researcher would interpret them.

Note: Some articles collapse the Discussion and Conclusion sections together under a single heading (usually “Conclusion”). If you don’t see a separate Discussion section, don’t worry.  Instead, look in the nearby sections for the types of information described in the paragraph above.

When you first skim an article, it may be useful to go straight to the Conclusion and see if you can figure out what the thesis is since it is usually in this final section. The research gap identified in the introduction indicates what the researchers wanted to look at; what did they claim, ultimately, when they completed their research? What did it show them—and what are they showing us—about the topic? Did they get the results they expected? Why or why not? The thesis is not a sweeping proclamation; rather, it is likely a very reasonable and conditional claim.

Nearly every research article ends by inviting other scholars to continue the work by saying that more research needs to be done on the matter. However, do not mistake this directive for the thesis; it’s a convention. Often, the authors provide specific details about future possible studies that could or should be conducted in order to make more sense of their own study’s conclusions.

• Parts of An Article. Authored by : Kerry Bowers. Provided by : University of Mississippi. Project : WRIT 250 Committee OER Project. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

• SpringerLink shop

Discussion and Conclusions

Your Discussion and Conclusions sections should answer the question: What do your results mean?

In other words, the majority of the Discussion and Conclusions sections should be an interpretation of your results. You should:

• Discuss your conclusions in order of  most to least important.
• Compare  your results with those from other studies: Are they consistent? If not, discuss possible reasons for the difference.
• Mention any  inconclusive results  and explain them as best you can. You may suggest additional experiments needed to clarify your results.
• Briefly describe the  limitations  of your study to show reviewers and readers that you have considered your experiment’s weaknesses. Many researchers are hesitant to do this as they feel it highlights the weaknesses in their research to the editor and reviewer. However doing this actually makes a positive impression of your paper as it makes it clear that you have an in depth understanding of your topic and can think objectively of your research.
• Discuss  what your results may mean  for researchers in the same field as you, researchers in other fields, and the general public. How could your findings be applied?
• State how your results  extend the findings  of previous studies.
• If your findings are preliminary, suggest  future studies  that need to be carried out.
• At the end of your Discussion and Conclusions sections,  state your main conclusions once again .

Back │ Next

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Results

Research results refer to the findings and conclusions derived from a systematic investigation or study conducted to answer a specific question or hypothesis. These results are typically presented in a written report or paper and can include various forms of data such as numerical data, qualitative data, statistics, charts, graphs, and visual aids.

Results Section in Research

The results section of the research paper presents the findings of the study. It is the part of the paper where the researcher reports the data collected during the study and analyzes it to draw conclusions.

In the results section, the researcher should describe the data that was collected, the statistical analysis performed, and the findings of the study. It is important to be objective and not interpret the data in this section. Instead, the researcher should report the data as accurately and objectively as possible.

Structure of Research Results Section

The structure of the research results section can vary depending on the type of research conducted, but in general, it should contain the following components:

• Introduction: The introduction should provide an overview of the study, its aims, and its research questions. It should also briefly explain the methodology used to conduct the study.
• Data presentation : This section presents the data collected during the study. It may include tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help readers better understand the data. The data presented should be organized in a logical and coherent way, with headings and subheadings used to help guide the reader.
• Data analysis: In this section, the data presented in the previous section are analyzed and interpreted. The statistical tests used to analyze the data should be clearly explained, and the results of the tests should be presented in a way that is easy to understand.
• Discussion of results : This section should provide an interpretation of the results of the study, including a discussion of any unexpected findings. The discussion should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Limitations: This section should acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as sample size, data collection methods, or other factors that may have influenced the results.
• Conclusions: The conclusions should summarize the main findings of the study and provide a final interpretation of the results. The conclusions should also address the study’s research questions and explain how the results contribute to the field of study.
• Recommendations : This section may provide recommendations for future research based on the study’s findings. It may also suggest practical applications for the study’s results in real-world settings.

Outline of Research Results Section

The following is an outline of the key components typically included in the Results section:

I. Introduction

• A brief overview of the research objectives and hypotheses
• A statement of the research question

II. Descriptive statistics

• Summary statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) for each variable analyzed
• Frequencies and percentages for categorical variables

III. Inferential statistics

• Results of statistical analyses, including tests of hypotheses
• Tables or figures to display statistical results

IV. Effect sizes and confidence intervals

• Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, odds ratio) to quantify the strength of the relationship between variables
• Confidence intervals to estimate the range of plausible values for the effect size

V. Subgroup analyses

• Results of analyses that examined differences between subgroups (e.g., by gender, age, treatment group)

VI. Limitations and assumptions

• Discussion of any limitations of the study and potential sources of bias
• Assumptions made in the statistical analyses

VII. Conclusions

• A summary of the key findings and their implications
• A statement of whether the hypotheses were supported or not
• Suggestions for future research

Example of Research Results Section

An Example of a Research Results Section could be:

• This study sought to examine the relationship between sleep quality and academic performance in college students.
• Hypothesis : College students who report better sleep quality will have higher GPAs than those who report poor sleep quality.
• Methodology : Participants completed a survey about their sleep habits and academic performance.

II. Participants

• Participants were college students (N=200) from a mid-sized public university in the United States.
• The sample was evenly split by gender (50% female, 50% male) and predominantly white (85%).
• Participants were recruited through flyers and online advertisements.

III. Results

• Participants who reported better sleep quality had significantly higher GPAs (M=3.5, SD=0.5) than those who reported poor sleep quality (M=2.9, SD=0.6).
• See Table 1 for a summary of the results.
• Participants who reported consistent sleep schedules had higher GPAs than those with irregular sleep schedules.

IV. Discussion

• The results support the hypothesis that better sleep quality is associated with higher academic performance in college students.
• These findings have implications for college students, as prioritizing sleep could lead to better academic outcomes.
• Limitations of the study include self-reported data and the lack of control for other variables that could impact academic performance.

V. Conclusion

• College students who prioritize sleep may see a positive impact on their academic performance.
• These findings highlight the importance of sleep in academic success.
• Future research could explore interventions to improve sleep quality in college students.

Example of Research Results in Research Paper :

Our study aimed to compare the performance of three different machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Neural Network) in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company. We collected a dataset of 10,000 customer records, with 20 predictor variables and a binary churn outcome variable.

Our analysis revealed that all three algorithms performed well in predicting customer churn, with an overall accuracy of 85%. However, the Random Forest algorithm showed the highest accuracy (88%), followed by the Support Vector Machine (86%) and the Neural Network (84%).

Furthermore, we found that the most important predictor variables for customer churn were monthly charges, contract type, and tenure. Random Forest identified monthly charges as the most important variable, while Support Vector Machine and Neural Network identified contract type as the most important.

Overall, our results suggest that machine learning algorithms can be effective in predicting customer churn in a telecommunications company, and that Random Forest is the most accurate algorithm for this task.

Example 3 :

Title : The Impact of Social Media on Body Image and Self-Esteem

Abstract : This study aimed to investigate the relationship between social media use, body image, and self-esteem among young adults. A total of 200 participants were recruited from a university and completed self-report measures of social media use, body image satisfaction, and self-esteem.

Results: The results showed that social media use was significantly associated with body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem. Specifically, participants who reported spending more time on social media platforms had lower levels of body image satisfaction and self-esteem compared to those who reported less social media use. Moreover, the study found that comparing oneself to others on social media was a significant predictor of body image dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem.

Conclusion : These results suggest that social media use can have negative effects on body image satisfaction and self-esteem among young adults. It is important for individuals to be mindful of their social media use and to recognize the potential negative impact it can have on their mental health. Furthermore, interventions aimed at promoting positive body image and self-esteem should take into account the role of social media in shaping these attitudes and behaviors.

Importance of Research Results

Research results are important for several reasons, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research results can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field, whether it be in science, technology, medicine, social sciences, or humanities.
• Developing theories: Research results can help to develop or modify existing theories and create new ones.
• Improving practices: Research results can inform and improve practices in various fields, such as education, healthcare, business, and public policy.
• Identifying problems and solutions: Research results can identify problems and provide solutions to complex issues in society, including issues related to health, environment, social justice, and economics.
• Validating claims : Research results can validate or refute claims made by individuals or groups in society, such as politicians, corporations, or activists.
• Providing evidence: Research results can provide evidence to support decision-making, policy-making, and resource allocation in various fields.

How to Write Results in A Research Paper

Here are some general guidelines on how to write results in a research paper:

• Organize the results section: Start by organizing the results section in a logical and coherent manner. Divide the section into subsections if necessary, based on the research questions or hypotheses.
• Present the findings: Present the findings in a clear and concise manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data and make the presentation more engaging.
• Describe the data: Describe the data in detail, including the sample size, response rate, and any missing data. Provide relevant descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and ranges.
• Interpret the findings: Interpret the findings in light of the research questions or hypotheses. Discuss the implications of the findings and the extent to which they support or contradict existing theories or previous research.
• Discuss the limitations : Discuss the limitations of the study, including any potential sources of bias or confounding factors that may have affected the results.
• Compare the results : Compare the results with those of previous studies or theoretical predictions. Discuss any similarities, differences, or inconsistencies.
• Avoid redundancy: Avoid repeating information that has already been presented in the introduction or methods sections. Instead, focus on presenting new and relevant information.
• Be objective: Be objective in presenting the results, avoiding any personal biases or interpretations.

When to Write Research Results

Here are situations When to Write Research Results”

• After conducting research on the chosen topic and obtaining relevant data, organize the findings in a structured format that accurately represents the information gathered.
• Once the data has been analyzed and interpreted, and conclusions have been drawn, begin the writing process.
• Before starting to write, ensure that the research results adhere to the guidelines and requirements of the intended audience, such as a scientific journal or academic conference.
• Begin by writing an abstract that briefly summarizes the research question, methodology, findings, and conclusions.
• Follow the abstract with an introduction that provides context for the research, explains its significance, and outlines the research question and objectives.
• The next section should be a literature review that provides an overview of existing research on the topic and highlights the gaps in knowledge that the current research seeks to address.
• The methodology section should provide a detailed explanation of the research design, including the sample size, data collection methods, and analytical techniques used.
• Present the research results in a clear and concise manner, using graphs, tables, and figures to illustrate the findings.
• Discuss the implications of the research results, including how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the topic and what further research is needed.
• Conclude the paper by summarizing the main findings, reiterating the significance of the research, and offering suggestions for future research.

Purpose of Research Results

The purposes of Research Results are as follows:

• Informing policy and practice: Research results can provide evidence-based information to inform policy decisions, such as in the fields of healthcare, education, and environmental regulation. They can also inform best practices in fields such as business, engineering, and social work.
• Addressing societal problems : Research results can be used to help address societal problems, such as reducing poverty, improving public health, and promoting social justice.
• Generating economic benefits : Research results can lead to the development of new products, services, and technologies that can create economic value and improve quality of life.
• Supporting academic and professional development : Research results can be used to support academic and professional development by providing opportunities for students, researchers, and practitioners to learn about new findings and methodologies in their field.
• Enhancing public understanding: Research results can help to educate the public about important issues and promote scientific literacy, leading to more informed decision-making and better public policy.
• Evaluating interventions: Research results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, such as treatments, educational programs, and social policies. This can help to identify areas where improvements are needed and guide future interventions.
• Contributing to scientific progress: Research results can contribute to the advancement of science by providing new insights and discoveries that can lead to new theories, methods, and techniques.
• Informing decision-making : Research results can provide decision-makers with the information they need to make informed decisions. This can include decision-making at the individual, organizational, or governmental levels.
• Fostering collaboration : Research results can facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners, leading to new partnerships, interdisciplinary approaches, and innovative solutions to complex problems.

Advantages of Research Results

Some Advantages of Research Results are as follows:

• Improved decision-making: Research results can help inform decision-making in various fields, including medicine, business, and government. For example, research on the effectiveness of different treatments for a particular disease can help doctors make informed decisions about the best course of treatment for their patients.
• Innovation : Research results can lead to the development of new technologies, products, and services. For example, research on renewable energy sources can lead to the development of new and more efficient ways to harness renewable energy.
• Economic benefits: Research results can stimulate economic growth by providing new opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs. For example, research on new materials or manufacturing techniques can lead to the development of new products and processes that can create new jobs and boost economic activity.
• Improved quality of life: Research results can contribute to improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole. For example, research on the causes of a particular disease can lead to the development of new treatments and cures, improving the health and well-being of millions of people.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 7. The Results
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The results section is where you report the findings of your study based upon the methodology [or methodologies] you applied to gather information. The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research.

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070.

Importance of a Good Results Section

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything . Findings can only confirm or reject the hypothesis underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported . Be concise. Use non-textual elements appropriately, such as figures and tables, to present findings more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish information that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other content that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data that has not been summarized should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question . The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good strategy is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper that follows].

Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Brett, Paul. "A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles." English for Specific Speakers 13 (1994): 47-59; Go to English for Specific Purposes on ScienceDirect;Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008; Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit; "Reporting Findings." In Making Sense of Social Research Malcolm Williams, editor. (London;: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp. 188-207.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Organization and Approach

For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results . Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach.

• Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings . This approach can be used to highlight important findings. For example, you may have noticed an unusual correlation between two variables during the analysis of your findings. It is appropriate to highlight this finding in the results section. However, speculating as to why this correlation exists and offering a hypothesis about what may be happening belongs in the discussion section of your paper.
• Present a result and then explain it, before presenting the next result then explaining it, and so on, then end with an overall synopsis . This is the preferred approach if you have multiple results of equal significance. It is more common in longer papers because it helps the reader to better understand each finding. In this model, it is helpful to provide a brief conclusion that ties each of the findings together and provides a narrative bridge to the discussion section of the your paper.

NOTE :   Just as the literature review should be arranged under conceptual categories rather than systematically describing each source, you should also organize your findings under key themes related to addressing the research problem. This can be done under either format noted above [i.e., a thorough explanation of the key results or a sequential, thematic description and explanation of each finding].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following:

• Introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem underpinning your study . This is useful in re-orientating the reader's focus back to the research problem after having read a review of the literature and your explanation of the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.
• Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate key findings, if appropriate . Rather than relying entirely on descriptive text, consider how your findings can be presented visually. This is a helpful way of condensing a lot of data into one place that can then be referred to in the text. Consider referring to appendices if there is a lot of non-textual elements.
• A systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation . Not all results that emerge from the methodology used to gather information may be related to answering the " So What? " question. Do not confuse observations with interpretations; observations in this context refers to highlighting important findings you discovered through a process of reviewing prior literature and gathering data.
• The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported . However, focus on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem. It is not uncommon to have unanticipated results that are not relevant to answering the research question. This is not to say that you don't acknowledge tangential findings and, in fact, can be referred to as areas for further research in the conclusion of your paper. However, spending time in the results section describing tangential findings clutters your overall results section and distracts the reader.
• A short paragraph that concludes the results section by synthesizing the key findings of the study . Highlight the most important findings you want readers to remember as they transition into the discussion section. This is particularly important if, for example, there are many results to report, the findings are complicated or unanticipated, or they are impactful or actionable in some way [i.e., able to be pursued in a feasible way applied to practice].

NOTE:   Always use the past tense when referring to your study's findings. Reference to findings should always be described as having already happened because the method used to gather the information has been completed.

III.  Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following :

• Discussing or interpreting your results . Save this for the discussion section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to the work of Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].
• Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings. This should have been done in your introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need for additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Writing up research is rarely a linear process. Always revise your introduction as needed.
• Ignoring negative results . A negative result generally refers to a finding that does not support the underlying assumptions of your study. Do not ignore them. Document these findings and then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, can give you an opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be hesitant to highlight them.
• Including raw data or intermediate calculations . Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.
• Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings . Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater than other variables..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...." Subjective modifiers should be explained in the discussion section of the paper [i.e., why did one variable appear greater? Or, how does the finding demonstrate a promising trend?].
• Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once . If you want to highlight a particular finding, it is appropriate to do so in the results section. However, you should emphasize its significance in relation to addressing the research problem in the discussion section. Do not repeat it in your results section because you can do that in the conclusion of your paper.
• Confusing figures with tables . Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper. Don't call a chart an illustration or a figure a table. If you are not sure, go here .

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008;  Caprette, David R. Writing Research Papers. Experimental Biosciences Resources. Rice University; Hancock, Dawson R. and Bob Algozzine. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers . 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011; Introduction to Nursing Research: Reporting Research Findings. Nursing Research: Open Access Nursing Research and Review Articles. (January 4, 2012); Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit ; Ng, K. H. and W. C. Peh. "Writing the Results." Singapore Medical Journal 49 (2008): 967-968; Reporting Research Findings. Wilder Research, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. (February 2009); Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Results. Thesis Writing in the Sciences. Course Syllabus. University of Florida.

Writing Tip

Why Don't I Just Combine the Results Section with the Discussion Section?

It's not unusual to find articles in scholarly social science journals where the author(s) have combined a description of the findings with a discussion about their significance and implications. You could do this. However, if you are inexperienced writing research papers, consider creating two distinct sections for each section in your paper as a way to better organize your thoughts and, by extension, your paper. Think of the results section as the place where you report what your study found; think of the discussion section as the place where you interpret the information and answer the "So What?" question. As you become more skilled writing research papers, you can consider melding the results of your study with a discussion of its implications.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn and Aleksandra Kasztalska. Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Insiderness
• Next: Using Non-Textual Elements >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

Results & Discussion

Characteristics of results & discussion.

• Results section contains data collected by scientists from experiments that they conducted.
• Data can be measurements, numbers, descriptions and/or observations.
• Scientific data is typically described using graphs, tables, figures, diagrams, maps, charts, photographs and/or equations.
• Discussion section provides an interpretation of the data, especially in context to previously published research.

The Results and Discussion sections can be written as separate sections (as shown in Fig. 2 ), but are often combined in a poster into one section called Results and Discussion.   This is done in order to (1) save precious space on a poster for the many pieces of information that a scientist would like to tell their audience and (2) by combining the two sections, it becomes easier for the audience to understand the significance of the research.   Combining the Results section and Discussion section in a poster is different for what is typically done for a scientific journal article.   In most journal articles, the Results section is separated from the Discussion section.   Journal articles are different from posters in that a scientist is not standing next to their journal article explaining it to a reader.   Therefore, in a journal article, an author needs to provide more detailed information so that the reader can understand the research independently.   Separating the Results section and Discussion section allows an author the space necessary to write a lengthier description of the research. Journal articles typically contain more text and more content (e.g., figures, tables) than posters.

The Results and Discussion section should contain data, typically in the form of a graph, histogram, chart, image, color-coded map or table ( Figs. 1 & 4 ).   Very often data means numbers that scientists collect from making measurements.   These data are typically presented to an audience in the form of graphs and charts to show a reader how these numbers change over time, space or experimental conditions ( Fig. 7 ).   Numbers can increase, decrease or stay the same and a graph, or another type of figure, can be effectively used to convey this information to a reader in a visual format ( Fig. 7 ).      

Figure 7. Example of a Graph

An audience will be attracted to a poster because of its figures and so it is very important for the author to pay particular attention to the creation, design and placement of the figures in a poster ( Figs. 1 & 4 ).   A good figure is one that is informative, easy to comprehend and allows the reader to understand the significance of the data and experiment.   Very often an author will use color to draw attention to a figure.      

The Discussion section should state the importance of the research that is presented in the poster.   It should provide an interpretation of the results, especially in context to previously published research.   It may propose future experiments that need to be conducted as a result of the research presented in the poster.   It should clearly illustrate the significance of the research with regards to new knowledge, understanding and/or discoveries that were made as part of the research.

Scientific Posters: A Learner's Guide Copyright © 2020 by Ella Weaver; Kylienne A. Shaul; Henry Griffy; and Brian H. Lower is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, writing a compelling results and discussion section.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 12 March, 2021
• Academic Writing Skills

In the results section of your academic paper, you present what you found when you conducted your analyses, whereas in your discussion section you explain what your results mean and connect them to prior research studies. In other words, the results section is where you describe what you did, and the discussion sections is where you describe what this means for the field.

The results section should include the findings of your study without any interpretations or implications that you can draw from those results. Here, you present the findings using text supported by tables, charts, graphs and other figures. For example, in the following excerpt from article by Tolksdorf, Crawshaw, & Rohlfing, (2021), you can see how directly they report the results of their study.

Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no main effect of time, F(3, ∞) = 0.638, p = 0.166, and no significant interaction between experimental condition and time, F(3, ∞) = 0.427, p = 0.133, indicating that no significant changes in children's social referencing behavior were found in either group over the entire course of the sessions, including all learning and test situations. However, there was a highly significant main effect of condition F(1, 16.99) = 49.08, p < 0.001, demonstrating that children in the human condition displayed social referencing significantly more often than their peers interacting with the robotic partner. (p. 6)

Further in the results section the authors use a table to illustrate their results.

Table 1 presents an overview of the different interactional contexts in which children’s social referencing was situated during the long-term interaction. (p. 6)

As you can see, the results section is very direct and reports the outcome from the statistical analyses conducted. Tables and figures can help break up this section, as it can be very technical. In addition, using visuals in this way makes the results more accessible to readers.

The discussion section, which follows the results section, will include an explanation of the results. In this section, you should connect your results to previous research studies, make explicit connections back to your research question(s) and include an explanation about how the results might be generalized. This is where you make an argument that supports your main conclusions. Unlike the results section, the discussion section is where you interpret your results and explain what they mean, draw implications from your results and articulate why they matter, discuss any limitations of your results, and provide recommendations that can be made from these results. The following excerpts from the Tolksdorf, Crawshaw, & Rohlfing, (2021), help to further illustrate the difference between the results and discussions sections.

Contrary to our prior assumption, we could not observe a significant decrease in children’s social referencing in both groups despite the repetition of the interaction and increasing familiarity with the situation. Whereas, there appeared to be a slight decreasing tendency from the second to the third learning situation in each group, this trend may have been slowed down by the subsequent novel situation of the retention task, which again increased children’s reliance on the caregiver despite increasing familiarity with the interaction partner. (p. 8)

The large difference in children’s social referencing behavior between an interaction with the human vs. robotic partner is striking. One explanation for our findings is that a human partner naturally responds to various social cues (Kahle and Argyle, 2014) from the child in ways that social robots are not yet capable of, given their present technological limitations. (p. 8)

Notice how the authors provide a critical analysis of their results and offer explanations for what they found. In the second excerpt, observe how they tie an explanation for their result to prior research conducted in the field. Focusing on the results and discussion sections of different articles, and highlighting language that differentiates these sections from each other, can really help you to write your academic papers effectively.

Although the length and structure of the discussion section across research papers varies, there are some commonalities in the structure and content of these sections. Below is a suggested outline for a discussion section.

Paragraph 1.

In this paragraph provide a broad overview of the importance of your study. This is where you should restate your research topic. Avoid just repeating what you included in the results section. Include the main research findings that answer your primary research question(s).

Paragraph 2–3.

This section should be a critical analysis of your major findings. Here, you should articulate your interpretations of those findings. You should include whether these were the findings you expected and also whether they support any hypothesis you had. Provide explanations for the significance of the results and for any unexpected findings. Link your primary findings back to prior research studies. This section would also include any implications of your results. 

Paragraph 4.

Here you would include a discussion of any secondary findings that are of note. Additionally, you would also include any limitations of your study and how future studies might mitigate these limitations. The excerpt below, from the Tolksdorf, Crawshaw, & Rohlfing, (2021) study, provides an example of this.

We would also like to point to the possibility that the study design and procedure could have impacted our results. Adapting the design of the interaction from the robot experimental setting to be suitably comparable when taking place with a human interaction partner required us to make certain decisions. (p. 9)

Paragraph 5.

This should include the conclusion of the discussion section, and future directions. In this section you could include any new research questions that arose as a result of your study. Implications from your findings for the field should also be discussed in this paragraph.

There are a number of common errors researchers make when writing the results and discussion sections. The following checklist can help you avoid these common mistakes.

 Do not include interpretations or explanations of the findings in your results section. Remember that in the results section you are telling the reader what you found and in the discussion section you are telling them what it means and why it matters.

 Do not exclude negative findings from your results section. Although the temptation is to report only positive findings, negative findings are important to other researchers.

 You should not introduce any findings in your discussion section that were not included in the results section. These two sections should align, and you should discuss and explain only what you have already reported.

 Don’t restate results in the discussion paper without an explanation or critical analysis of what they mean and why they matter.

 Don’t forget to go back and check that these two sections align, and the flow from the results section to the discussion section is smooth and clear.

Tolksdorf NF, Crawshaw CE and Rohlfing KJ (2021) Comparing the Effects of a Different Social Partner (Social Robot vs. Human) on Children's Social Referencing in Interaction. Front. Educ. 5:569615. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.569615

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. We only work with native English-speaking editors with advanced or postdoctoral degrees in their disciplines.

To know more about our services: Link(https://www.cwauthors.com/EditingServices)

Our academic writing and publishing training courses, online materials, and blog articles contain numerous tips and tricks to help you navigate academic writing and publishing, and maximise your potential as a researcher.

Join us on our FREE series of webinars designed to help the researchers in achieving their publication success.

Register: (https://www.cwauthors.com/article/webinar-schedule-2020)

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Share with your colleagues

Recommended reading.

How to write an Introduction to an academic article

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Related articles

Article Titles: The Do's and Don'ts

Charlesworth Author Services 25/04/2017 00:00:00

How do I present data in an academic article?

Getting the title of your research article right

How to write a Methods section in your research paper

Writing a strong Methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 12/03/2021 00:00:00

Writing an Abstract: Purpose and Tips

What is the Difference Between Results and Discussion Section

An original research article typically comprises the following: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD). However, guidelines may differ across journals. Some journals may require the results and discussion to be a  combined section whereas others may require them to be separate sections. Read more about separating the results and discussions section .

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Top 4 Tools for Keyword Selection

Keywords play an important role in making research discoverable. It helps researchers discover articles relevant…

Top 4 Tools to Create Scientific Images and Figures

A good image or figure can go a long way in effectively communicating your results…

Tips to Effectively Present Your Work

Presenting your work is an important part of scientific communication and is very important for…

Tips to Tackle Procrastination

You can end up wasting a lot of time procrastinating. Procrastination leads you to a…

Rules of Capitalization

Using too much capitalization or using it incorrectly can undermine, clutter, and confuse your writing…

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

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

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024

Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research

• Sahar Hammoud   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-9001 1 ,
• Laith Alsabek 1 , 2 ,
• Lisa Rogers 1 &
• Eilish McAuliffe 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  532 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.

Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.

A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% ( n  = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

Conclusions

Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.

Trial registration

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

Peer Review reports

Patient safety (PS) is defined as “the absence of preventable harm to a patient and reduction of risk of unnecessary harm associated with healthcare to an acceptable minimum” [ 1 ]. It is estimated that one in 10 patients are harmed in healthcare settings due to unsafe care, resulting in over three million deaths annually [ 2 ]. More than 50% of adverse events are preventable, and half of these events are related to medications [ 3 , 4 ]. There are various types of adverse events that patients can experience such as medication errors, patient falls, healthcare-associated infections, diagnostic errors, pressure ulcers, unsafe surgical procedures, patient misidentification, and others [ 1 ].

Over the last few decades, the approach of PS management has shifted toward actively involving patients and their families in managing PS. This innovative approach has surpassed the traditional model where healthcare providers were the sole managers of PS [ 5 ]. Recent research has shown that patients have a vital role in promoting their safety and decreasing the occurrence of adverse events [ 6 ]. Hence, there is a growing recognition of patient and family involvement as a promising method to enhance PS [ 7 ]. This approach includes involving patients in PS policy development, research, and shared decision making [ 1 ].

In the last decade, research involving patients and the public has significantly increased. In the United Kingdom (U.K), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has played a critical role in providing strategic and infrastructure support to integrate Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) throughout publicly funded research [ 8 ]. This has established a context where PPI is recognised as an essential element in research [ 9 ]. In Ireland, the national government agency responsible for the management and delivery of all public health and social services; the National Health Service Executive (HSE) emphasise the importance of PPI in research and provide guidance for researchers on how to involve patients and public in all parts of the research cycle and knowledge translation process [ 10 ]. Similar initiatives are also developing among other European countries, North America, and Australia. However, despite this significant expansion of PPI research, the reporting of PPI in research articles continues to be sub-optimal, inconsistent, and lacks essential information on the context, process, and impact of PPI [ 9 ]. To address this problem, the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) was developed in 2011 following the EQUATOR methodology to enhance the quality, consistency, and transparency of PPI reporting. Additionally, to provide guidance for researchers, patients, and the public to advance the quality of the international PPI evidence-base [ 11 ]. The first GRIPP checklist was a significant start in producing higher-quality PPI reporting; however, it was developed following a systematic review, and did not include any input from the international PPI research community. Given the importance of reaching consensus in generating current reporting guidelines, a second version of the GRIPP checklist (GRIPP2) was developed to tackle this problem by involving the international PPI community in its development [ 9 ]. There are two versions of the GRIPP2 checklist, a long form (GRIPP2-LF) for studies with PPI as the primary focus, and a short form (GRIPP2-SF) for studies with PPI as secondary or tertiary focus.

Since the publication of the GRIPP2 checklist, several systematic reviews have been conducted to assess the quality of PPI reporting on various topics. For instance, Bergin et al. in their review to investigate the nature and impact of PPI in cancer research, reported a sub-optimal quality of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2-SF, mainly due to failure to address PPI challenges [ 12 ]. Similarly, Owyang et al. in their systematic review to assess the prevalence, extent, and quality of PPI in orthopaedic practice, described a poor PPI reporting following the GRIPP2-SF checklist criteria [ 13 ]. While a few systematic reviews have been conducted to assess theories, strategies, types of interventions, and barriers and enablers of PPI in PS [ 5 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], no previous review has assessed the quality of PPI reporting in PS research. Thus, our systematic review aims to address this knowledge gap. The objective of this review is to identify the frequency PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist from 2018 (the year after GRIPP2 was published) and the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF. The GRIPP2 checklist was chosen as the benchmark as it is the first international, evidence-based, community consensus informed guideline for the reporting of PPI in research and more specifically in health and social care research [ 9 ]. Additionally, it is the most recent report-focused framework and the most recommended by several leading journals [ 17 ].

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to plan and report this review [ 18 ]. The review protocol was published on PROSPERO the International Database of Prospectively Registered Systematic Reviews in August 2023 (CRD42023450715).

Search strategy

For this review, we used the PICo framework to define the key elements in our research. These included articles on patients and public (P-Population) involvement (I- phenomenon of Interest) in PS (C-context). Details are presented in Table  1 . Four databases were searched including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to identify papers on PPI in PS research. A systematic search strategy was initially developed using MEDLINE. MeSH terms and keywords relevant to specific categories (e.g., patient safety) were combined using the “OR” Boolean term (i.e. patient safety OR adverse event OR medical error OR surgical error) and categories were then combined using the “AND” Boolean term. (i.e. “patient and public involvement” AND “patient safety”). The search strategy was adapted for the other three databases. Full search strategies are provided in Supplementary file 1 . The search was conducted on July 27th, 2023, and was limited to papers published from 2018. As the GRIPP2 tool was published in 2017, this limit ensured the retrieval of relevant studies. An alert system was set on the four databases to receive all new published studies until December 2023, prior to the final analysis. The search was conducted without restrictions on study type, research design, and language. To reduce selection bias, hand searching was carried out on the reference lists of all the eligible articles in the later stages of the review. This was done by the first author. The search strategy was developed by the first author and confirmed by the research team and a Librarian. The database search was conducted by the first author.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies on PPI in PS research with a focus on health/healthcare were included in this review. We defined PPI as active involvement which is in line with the NIHR INVOLVE definition as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” [ 19 ]. This includes any PPI including, being a co-applicant on a research project or grant application, identifying research priorities, being a member of an advisory or steering group, participating in developing research materials or giving feedback on them, conducting interviews with study participants, participating in recruitment, data collection, data analysis, drafting manuscripts and/or dissemination of results. Accordingly, we excluded studies where patients or the public were only involved as research participants.

We defined patients and public to include patients, relatives, carers, caregivers and community, which is also in line with the NIHR PPI involvement in National Health Service [ 19 ].

Patient safety included topics on medication safety, adverse events, communication, safety culture, diagnostic errors, and others. A full list of the used terms for PPI and PS is provided in Supplementary file 1 . Regarding the research type and design, we included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals and in English were included.

Any article that did not meet the inclusion criteria was excluded. Studies not reporting outcomes were excluded. Furthermore, review papers, conference abstracts, letters to editor, commentary, viewpoints, and short communications were excluded. Finally, papers published prior to 2018 were excluded.

Study selection

The selection of eligible studies was done by the first and the second authors independently, starting with title and abstracts screening to eliminate papers that failed to meet our inclusion criteria. Then, full text screening was conducted to decide on the final included papers in this review. Covidence, an online data management system supported the review process, ensuring reviewers were blinded to each other’s decisions. Disagreements between reviewers were discussed first, in cases where the disagreement was not resolved, the fourth author was consulted.

Data extraction and analysis

A data extraction sheet was developed using excel then piloted, discussed with the research team and modified as appropriate. The following data were extracted: citation and year of publication, objective of the study, country, PS topic, design, setting, PPI participants, PPI stages (identifying research priorities, being a member of an advisory or steering group, etc.…), frequency of PPI reporting as per the GRIPP2 checklist, and the availability of a plain language summary. Additionally, data against the five items of GRIPP2-SF (aim of PPI in the study, methods used for PPI, outcomes of PPI including the results and the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall, and reflections on PPI) were extracted. To avoid multiple publication bias and missing outcomes, data extraction was done by the first and the second authors independently and then compared. Disagreements between reviewers were first discussed, and then resolved by the third and fourth authors if needed.

Quality assessment

The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using GRIPP2-SF developed by Staniszewska et al. [ 9 ] as it is developed to improve the quality, consistency, and reporting of PPI in social and healthcare research. Additionally the GRIPP2-SF is suitable for all studies regardless of whether PPI is the primary, secondary, or tertiary focus, whereas the GRIPP2-LF is not suitable for studies where PPI serves as a secondary or tertiary focus. The checklist includes five items (mentioned above) that authors should include in their studies. It is important to mention that Staniszewska et al. noted that “while GRIPP2-SF aims to guide consistent reporting, it is not possible to be prescriptive about the exact content of each item, as the current evidence-base is not advanced enough to make this possible” ([ 9 ] p5). For that reason, we had to develop criteria for scoring the five reporting items. We used three scoring as Yes, No, and partial for each of the five items of the GRIPP2-SF. Yes, was given when authors presented PPI information on the item clearly in the paper. No, when no information was provided, and partial when the information partially met the item requirement. For example, as per GRIPP2-SF authors should provide a clear description of the methods used for PPI in the study. In the example given by Staniszewska et al., information on patient/public partners and how many of them were provided, as well as the stages of the study they were involved in (i.e. refining the focus of the research questions, developing the search strategy, interpreting results). Thus, in our evaluation of the included studies, we gave a yes if information on PPI participants (i.e. patient partners, community partners, or family members etc..) and how many of them were involved was provided, and information on the stages or actions of their involvement in the study was provided. However, we gave a “partial” if information was not fully provided (i.e. information on patient/public partners and how many were involved in the study without describing in what stages or actions they were involved, and vice versa), and a “No” if no information was presented at all.

The quality of PPI reporting was done by the first and the second authors independently and then compared. Disagreements between reviewers were first discussed, and then resolved by the third and fourth author when needed.

Assessing the quality or risk of bias of the included studies was omitted, as the focus in this review was on appraising the quality of PPI reporting rather than assessing the quality of each research article.

Data synthesis

After data extraction, a table summarising the included studies was developed. Studies were compared according to the main outcomes of the review; frequency of PPI reporting following the GRIPP2 checklist and the quality of reporting as per GRIPP2-SF five items, and the availability of a plain language summary.

Search results and study selection

The database searches yielded a total of 8491 studies. First, 2496 were removed as duplicates. Then, after title and abstract screening, 5785 articles were excluded leaving 210 articles eligible for the full text review. After a careful examination, 68 of these studies were included in this review. A further 38 studies were identified from the alert system that was set on the four databases and 32 studies from the reference check of the included studies. Of these 70 articles, 56 were further excluded and 14 were added to the previous 68 included studies. Thus, 82 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. A summary of the database search results and the study selection process are presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process. The PRISMA flow diagram details the review search results and selection process

Overview of included studies

Details of the study characteristics including first author and year of publication, objective, country, study design, setting, PS topic, PPI participants and involvement stages are presented in Supplementary file 2 . The majority of the studies were conducted in the U.K ( n  = 24) and the United States of America ( n  = 18), with the remaining 39 conducted in other high income countries, the exception being one study in Haiti. A range of study designs were identified, the most common being qualitative ( n  = 31), mixed methods ( n  = 13), interventional ( n  = 5), and quality improvement projects ( n  = 4). Most PS topics concerned medication safety ( n  = 17), PS in general (e.g., developing a PS survey or PS management application) ( n  = 14), fall prevention ( n  = 13), communication ( n  = 11), and adverse events ( n  = 10), with the remaining PS topics listed in Supplementary file 2 .

Patient representatives, advocates, and patient advisory groups ( n  = 33) and patients, service users, and health consumers ( n  = 32) were the main groups involved. The remaining, included community members/ organisations. Concerning PPI stages, the main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials ( n  = 74) including, patient leaflets, interventional tools, mobile applications, and survey instruments. Following this stage, involvement in data analysis, drafting manuscripts, and disseminating results ( n  = 30), and being a member of a project advisory or steering group ( n  = 18) were the most common PPI evident in included studies. Whereas the least involvement was in identifying research priorities ( n  = 5), and being a co-applicant on a research project or grant application ( n  = 6).

Regarding plain language summary, only one out of the 82 studies (1.22%) provided a plain language summary in their paper [ 20 ].

Frequency and quality of PPI reporting

The frequency of PPI reporting following the GRIPP2 checklist was 6.1%, where only five of the 82 included studies reported PPI in their papers following the GRIPP2 checklist. The quality of PPI reporting in those studies is presented in Table  2 . Of these five studies, one study (20%) did not report the aim of PPI in the study and one (20%) did not comment on the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

The quality of PPI reporting of the remaining 77 studies is presented in Table  3 . The aim of PPI in the study was reported in 62.3% of articles ( n  = 48), while 3.9% ( n  = 3) partially reported this. A clear description of the methods used for PPI in the study was reported in 79.2% of papers ( n  = 61) and partially in 20.8% ( n  = 16). Concerning the outcomes, 81.8% of papers ( n  = 63) reported the results of PPI in the study, while 10.4% ( n  = 8) partially did. Of the 77 studies, 68.8% ( n  = 53) reported the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall and 3.9% ( n  = 3) partially reported this. Finally, 57.1% ( n  = 44) of papers critically reflected on the things that went well and those that did not and 2.6% ( n  = 2) partially reflected on this.

Summary of main findings

This systematic review assessed the frequency of reporting PPI in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist and quality of reporting using the GRIPP2-SF. In total, 82 studies were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials such as educational and interventional tools, survey instruments, and applications while the least was in identifying research priorities and being a co-applicant on a research project or grant application. Thus, significant effort is still needed to involve patients and the public in the earlier stages of the research process given the fundamental impact of PS on their lives.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

A low frequency of reporting PPI in PS research following the GRIPP2 guidelines was revealed in this review, where only five of the 82 studies included mentioned that PPI was reported as per the GRIPP2 checklist. This is despite it being the most recent report-focused framework and the most recommended by several leading journals [ 17 ]. This was not surprising as similar results were reported in recent reviews in other healthcare topics. For instance, Musbahi et al. in their systematic review on PPI reporting in bariatric research reported that none of the 90 papers identified in their review mentioned or utilised the GRIPP2 checklist [ 102 ]. Similarly, a study on PPI in orthodontic research found that none of the 363 included articles reported PPI against the GRIPP2 checklist [ 103 ].

In relation to the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting within the 77 studies that did not use GRIPP2 as a guide/checklist to report their PPI. Similarly, Bergin et al. in their systematic review to investigate the nature and impact of PPI in cancer research concluded that substandard reporting was evident [ 12 ]. In our review, this was mainly due to failure to meet three criteria. First, the lowest percentage of reporting (57.1%, n  = 44) was related to critical reflection on PPI in the study (i.e., what went well and what did not). In total, 31 studies (42.9%) did not provide any information on this, and two studies were scored as partial. The first study mentioned that only involving one patient was a limitation [ 27 ] and the other stated that including three patients in the design of the tool was a strength [ 83 ]. Both studies did not critically comment or reflect on these points so that future researchers are able to avoid such problems and enhance PPI opportunities. For instance, providing the reasons/challenges behind the exclusive inclusion of a single patient and explaining how this limits the study findings and conclusion would help future researchers to address these challenges. Likewise, commenting on why incorporating three patients in the design of the study tool could be seen as a strength would have been beneficial. This could be, fostering diverse perspectives and generating novel ideas for developing the tool. Similar to our findings, Bergin et al. in their systematic review reported that 40% of the studies failed to meet this criterion [ 12 ].

Second, only 48 out of 77 articles (62.3%) reported the aim of PPI in their study, which is unlike the results of Bergin et al. where most of the studies (93.1%) in their review met this criterion [ 12 ]. Of the 29 studies which did not meet this criterion in our review, few mentioned in their objective developing a consensus-based instrument [ 41 ], reaching a consensus on the patient-reported outcomes [ 32 ], obtaining international consensus on a set of core outcome measures [ 98 ], and facilitating a multi-stakeholder dialogue [ 71 ] yet, without indicating anything in relation to patients, patient representatives, community members, or any other PPI participants. Thus, the lack of reporting the aim of PPI was clearly evident in this review. Reporting the aim of PPI in the study is crucial for promoting transparency, methodological rigor, reproducibility, and impact assessment of the PPI.

Third, 68.8% ( n  = 53) of the studies reported the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall including positive and negative effects if any. This was again similar to the findings of Bergin et al., where 38% of the studies did not meet this criterion mainly due to a failure to address PPI challenges in their respective studies [ 12 ]. Additionally, Owyang et al. in their review on the extent, and quality of PPI in orthopaedic practice, also described a poor reporting of PPI impact on research [ 13 ]. As per the GRIPP2 guidelines, both positive and negative effects of PPI on the study should be reported when applicable. Providing such information is essential as it enhances future research on PPI in terms of both practice and reporting.

Reporting a clear description of the methods used for PPI in the study was acceptable, with 79.2% of the papers meeting this criterion. Most studies provided information in the methods section of their papers on the PPI participants, their number, stages of their involvement and how they were involved. Providing clear information on the methods used for PPI is vital to give the reader a clear understanding of the steps taken to involve patients, and for other researchers to replicate these methods in future research. Additionally, reporting the results of PPI in the study was also acceptable with 81.8% of the papers reporting the outcomes of PPI in the results section. Reporting the results of PPI is important for enhancing methodological transparency, providing a more accurate interpretation for the study findings, contributing to the overall accountability and credibility of the research, and informing decision making.

Out of the 82 studies included in this review, only one study provided a plain language summary. We understand that PS research or health and medical research in general is difficult for patients and the public to understand given their diverse health literacy and educational backgrounds. However, if we expect patients and the public to be involved in research then, it is crucial to translate this research that has a huge impact on their lives into an easily accessible format. Failing to translate the benefits that such research may have on patient and public lives may result in them underestimating the value of this research and losing interest in being involved in the planning or implementation of future research [ 103 ]. Thus, providing a plain language summary for research is one way to tackle this problem. To our knowledge, only a few health and social care journals (i.e. Cochrane and BMC Research Involvement and Engagement) necessitate a plain language summary as a submission requirement. Having this as a requirement for submission is crucial in bringing the importance of this issue to researchers’ attention.

Research from recent years suggests that poor PPI reporting in articles relates to a lack of submission requirements for PPI reporting in journals and difficulties with word limits for submitted manuscripts [ 13 ]. Price et al. assessed the frequency of PPI reporting in published papers before and after the introduction of PPI reporting obligations by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) [ 104 ]. The authors identified an increase in PPI reporting in papers published by BMJ from 0.5% to 11% between the periods of 2013–2014 and 2015–2016. The study findings demonstrate the impact of journal guidelines in shaping higher quality research outputs [ 13 ]. In our review, we found a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist, alongside sub-optimal quality of reporting following GRIPP2-SF. This could potentially be attributed to the absence of submission requirements for PPI reporting in journals following the GRIPP2 checklist, as well as challenges posed by word limits.

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review presents an overview on the frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist, as well as an evaluation of the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF. As the first review to focus on PS research, it provides useful knowledge on the status of PPI reporting in this field, and the extent to which researchers are adopting and adhering to PPI reporting guidelines. Despite these strengths, our review has some limitations that should be mentioned. First, only English language papers were included in this review due to being the main language of the researchers. Thus, there is a possibility that relevant articles on PPI in PS research may have been omitted. Another limitation is related to our search which was limited to papers published starting 2018 as the GRIPP2 guidelines were published in 2017. Thus it is probable that the protocols of some of these studies were developed earlier than the publication of the GRIPP2 checklist, meaning that PPI reporting following GRIPP2 was not common practice and thus not adopted by these studies. This might limit the conclusions we can draw from this review. Finally, the use of GRIPP2 to assess the quality of PPI reporting might be a limitation as usability testing has not yet been conducted to understand how the checklist works in practice with various types of research designs. However, the GRIPP2 is the first international, evidence-based, community consensus informed guideline for the reporting of PPI in health and social care research. Reflections and comments from researchers using the GRIPP2 will help improve its use in future studies.

Implications for research and practice

Lack of PPI reporting not only affects the quality of research but also implies that others cannot learn from previous research experience. Additionally, without consistent and transparent reporting it is difficult to evaluate the impact of various PPI in research [ 9 ]: “if it is not reported it cannot be assessed” ([ 105 ] p19). Enhanced PPI reporting will result in a wider range and richer high-quality evidence-based PPI research, leading to a better understanding of PPI use and effectiveness [ 103 ]. GRIPP2 reporting guidelines were developed to provide guidance for researchers, patients, and the public to enhance the quality of PPI reporting and improve the quality of the international PPI evidence-base. The guidance can be used prospectively to plan PPI or retrospectively to guide the structure or PPI reporting in research [ 9 ]. To enhance PPI reporting, we recommend the following;

Publishers and journals

First, we encourage publishers and journals to require researchers to report PPI following the GRIPP2 checklist. Utilising the short or the long version should depend on the primary focus of the study (i.e., if PPI is within the primary focus of the research then the GRIPP2-LF is recommended). Second, we recommend that journals and editorial members advise reviewers to evaluate PPI reporting within research articles following the GRIPP2 tool and make suggestions accordingly. Finally, we encourage journals to add a plain language summary as a submission requirement to increase research dissemination and improve the accessibility of research for patients and the public.

Researchers

Though there is greater evidence of PPI in research, it is still primarily the researchers that are setting the research agenda and deciding on the research questions to be addressed. Thus, significant effort is still needed to involve patients and the public in the earlier stages of the research process given the fundamental impact of PS on their lives. To enhance future PPI reporting, perhaps adding a criterion following the GRIPP2 tool to existing EQUATOR checklists for reporting research papers such as STROBE, PRISMA, CONSORT, may support higher quality research. Additionally, currently, there is no detailed explanation paper for the GRIPP2 where each criterion is explained in detail with examples. Addressing this gap would be of great benefit to guide the structure of PPI reporting and to explore the applicability of each criterion in relation to different stages of PPI in research. For instance, having a detailed explanation for each criterion across different research studies having various PPI stages would be of high value to improve future PPI reporting given the growing interest in PPI research in recent years and the relatively small PPI evidence base in health and medical research.

Funding bodies can also enhance PPI reporting by adding a requirement for researchers to report PPI following the GRIPP2 checklist. In Ireland, the National HSE has already initiated this by requiring all PPI in HSE research in Ireland to be reported following the GRIPP2 guidelines [ 10 ].

This study represents the first systematic review on the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Most PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Thus, efforts are still needed to involve patients and the public across all aspects of the research process, especially earlier stages of the research cycle. The frequency of PPI reporting following the GRIPP2 guidelines was low, and the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria was sub-optimal. The lowest percentages of reporting were on critically reflecting on PPI in the study so future research can learn from this experience and work to improve it, reporting the aim of the PPI in the study, and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall including positive and negative effects. Researchers, funders, publishers, journals, editorial members and reviewers have a responsibility to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be supported to help future researchers plan and report PPI more effectively, which may ultimately improve the quality and relevance of research.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

• Patient safety

United Kingdom

National Institute for Health Research

Public and Patient Involvement

Health Service Executive

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public

Second version of the GRIPP checklist

Long form of GRIPP2

Short form of GRIPP2

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

The International Database of Prospectively Registered Systematic Reviews

British Medical Journal

Patient saftey: World Health Organisation. 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety . Updated 11 Sept 2023.

Slawomirski L, Klazinga N. The economics of patient safety: from analysis to action. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers RN, Abuzour A, Phipps D, Kontopantelis E, et al. Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj-Brit Med J. 2019;366:l4185.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hodkinson A, Tyler N, Ashcroft DM, Keers RN, Khan K, Phipps D, et al. Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmc Medicine. 2020;18(1):313.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Park M, Giap TTT. Patient and family engagement as a potential approach for improving patient safety: A systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(1):62–80.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chegini Z, Janati A, Bababie J, Pouraghaei M. The role of patients in the delivery of safe care in hospital: Study protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(9):2015–23.

Chegini Z, Arab-Zozani M, Islam SMS, Tobiano G, Rahimi SA. Barriers and facilitators to patient engagement in patient safety from patients and healthcare professionals’ perspectives: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Nurs Forum. 2021;56(4):938–49.

Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. London: National Institute for Health; 2015.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Bmj-Brit Med J. 2017;358:j3453.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Minogue V. Knowledge translation, dissemination, and impact: a practical guide for researchers. Guide No 8: patient and public involvement in HSE research. Ireland: Health Service Executive Research and Development; 2021.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):391–9.

Bergin RJ, Short CE, Davis N, Marker J, Dawson MT, Milton S, et al. The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2023;167:107412.

Owyang D, Bakhsh A, Brewer D, Boughton OR, Cobb JP. Patient and public involvement within orthopaedic research a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(13):e51.

Busch IM, Saxena A, Wu AW. Putting the patient in patient safety investigations: barriers and strategies for involvement. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(5):358–62.

Lee M, Lee NJ, Seo HJ, Jang H, Kim SM. Interventions to engage patients and families in patient safety: a systematic review. West J Nurs Res. 2021;43(10):972–83.

Ocloo J, Garfield S, Franklin BD, Dawson S. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):8.

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Plos Medicine. 2021;18(3):372.

INVOLVE. What is public involvement in research? NIHR; 2019. Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/ .

Shahid A, Sept B, Kupsch S, Brundin-Mather R, Piskulic D, Soo A, et al. Development and pilot implementation of a patient-oriented discharge summary for critically Ill patients. World J Crit Care Med. 2022;11(4):255–68.

Bisset CN, Dames N, Oliphant R, Alasadi A, Anderson D, Parson S, et al. Exploring shared surgical decision-making from the patient’s perspective: is the personality of the surgeon important? Colorectal Dis. 2020;22(12):2214–21.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Morris RL, Ruddock A, Gallacher K, Rolfe C, Giles S, Campbell S. Developing a patient safety guide for primary care: A co-design approach involving patients, carers and clinicians. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):42–52.

Tobiano G, Marshall AP, Gardiner T, Jenkinson K, Shapiro M, Ireland M. Development and psychometric testing of the patient participation in bedside handover survey. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2492–502.

Francis-Coad J, Farlie MK, Haines T, Black L, Weselman T, Cummings P, et al. Revising and evaluating falls prevention education for older adults in hospital. Health Educ J. 2023;82(8):878–91.

Troya MI, Chew-Graham CA, Babatunde O, Bartlam B, Higginbottom A, Dikomitis L. Patient and public involvement and engagement in a doctoral research project exploring self-harm in older adults. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):617–31.

Aharaz A, Kejser CL, Poulsen MW, Jeftic S, Ulstrup-Hansen AI, Jorgensen LM, et al. Optimization of the Danish National Electronic Prescribing System to improve patient safety: Development of a user-friendly prototype of the digital platform shared medication record. Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland). 2023;11(2):41.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aho-Glele U, Bouabida K, Kooijman A, Popescu IC, Pomey MP, Hawthornthwaite L, et al. Developing the first pan-Canadian survey on patient engagement in patient safety. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1099.

Albutt A, O’Hara J, Conner M, Lawton R. Involving patients in recognising clinical deterioration in hospital using the patient wellness questionnaire: A mixed-methods study. J Res Nurs. 2020;25(1):68–86.

Bell SK, Bourgeois F, DesRoches CM, Dong J, Harcourt K, Liu SK, et al. Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31(7):526–40.

Boet S, Etherington N, Lam S, Lê M, Proulx L, Britton M, et al. Implementation of the Operating Room Black Box research program at the Ottawa Hospital through patient, clinical, and organizational engagement: Case study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e15443.

Carter J, Tribe RM, Shennan AH, Sandall J. Threatened preterm labour: Women’s experiences of risk and care management: A qualitative study. Midwifery. 2018;64:85–92.

Da Silva Lopes AM, Colomer-Lahiguera S, Mederos Alfonso N, Aedo-Lopez V, Spurrier-Bernard G, Tolstrup LK, et al. Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring symptomatic toxicities in cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: A Delphi study. Eur J Cancer. 2021;157:225–37.

de Jong LD, Lavender AP, Wortham C, Skelton DA, Haines TP, Hill AM. Exploring purpose-designed audio-visual falls prevention messages on older people’s capability and motivation to prevent falls. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(4):e471–82.

Doucette L, Kiely BT, Gierisch JM, Marion E, Nadler L, Heflin MT, et al. Participatory research to improve medication reconciliation for older adults in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(2):620–31.

Elrod CS, Pappa ST, Heyn PC, Wong RA. Using an academic-community partnership model to deliver evidence-based falls prevention programs in a metropolitan setting: A community case study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1073520.

Feldman E, Pos FJ, Smeenk RJ, van der Poel H, van Leeuwen P, de Feijter JM, et al. Selecting a PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patient-reported symptom monitoring in prostate cancer patients: a modified Delphi procedure. ESMO Open. 2023;8(1):100775.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Francis-Coad J, Watts T, Bulsara C, Hill A-M. Designing and evaluating falls prevention education with residents and staff in aged care homes: a feasibility study. Health Educ (0965-4283). 2022;122(5):546–63.

Fuller TE, Pong DD, Piniella N, Pardo M, Bessa N, Yoon C, et al. Interactive digital health tools to engage patients and caregivers in discharge preparation: implementation study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(4):e15573.

Gibson B, Butler J, Schnock K, Bates D, Classen D. Design of a safety dashboard for patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(4):741–7.

Giles SJ, Lewis PJ, Phipps DL, Mann F, Avery AJ, Ashcroft DM. Capturing patients’ perspectives on medication safety: the development of a patient-centered medication safety framework. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(4):e324–39.

Gnagi R, Zuniga F, Brunkert T, Meyer-Massetti C. Development of a medication literacy assessment instrument (MELIA) for older people receiving home care. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(12):4210–20.

Goodsmith N, Zhang L, Ong MK, Ngo VK, Miranda J, Hirsch S, et al. Implementation of a community-partnered research suicide-risk management protocol: case study from community partners in care. Psychiatr Serv (Washington, DC). 2021;72(3):281–7.

Gorman LS, Littlewood DL, Quinlivan L, Monaghan E, Smith J, Barlow S, et al. Family involvement, patient safety and suicide prevention in mental healthcare: ethnographic study. BJPsych open. 2023;9(2):e54.

Green MM, Meyer C, Hutchinson AM, Sutherland F, Lowthian JA. Co‐designing being your best program—a holistic approach to frailty in older community dwelling australians. Health Soc Care Community. 2021;30(5):e2022–32.

Guo X, Wang Y, Wang L, Yang X, Yang W, Lu Z, et al. Effect of a fall prevention strategy for the older patients: A quasi-experimental study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(2):1116–24.

Hahn-Goldberg S, Chaput A, Rosenberg-Yunger Z, Lunsky Y, Okrainec K, Guilcher S, et al. Tool development to improve medication information transfer to patients during transitions of care: A participatory action research and design thinking methodology approach. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022;18(1):2170–7.

Harrington A, Darke H, Ennis G, Sundram S. Evaluation of an alternative model for the management of clinical risk in an adult acute psychiatric inpatient unit. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(5):1099–109.

Harris K, Softeland E, Moi AL, Harthug S, Ravnoy M, Storesund A, et al. Development and validation of patients’ surgical safety checklist. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):259.

Hawley-Hague H, Tacconi C, Mellone S, Martinez E, Ford C, Chiari L, et al. Smartphone apps to support falls rehabilitation exercise: app development and usability and acceptability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(9):e15460.

Holmqvist M, Ros A, Lindenfalk B, Thor J, Johansson L. How older persons and health care professionals co-designed a medication plan prototype remotely to promote patient safety: case study. JMIR aging. 2023;6:e41950.

Jayesinghe R, Moriarty F, Khatter A, Durbaba S, Ashworth M, Redmond P. Cost outcomes of potentially inappropriate prescribing in middle-aged adults: A Delphi consensus and cross-sectional study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(7):3404–20.

Johannessen T, Ree E, Stromme T, Aase I, Bal R, Wiig S. Designing and pilot testing of a leadership intervention to improve quality and safety in nursing homes and home care (the SAFE-LEAD intervention). BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e027790.

Joseph K, Newman B, Manias E, Walpola R, Seale H, Walton M, et al. Engaging with ethnic minority consumers to improve safety in cancer services: A national stakeholder analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(8):2778–84.

Khan A, Spector ND, Baird JD, Ashland M, Starmer AJ, Rosenbluth G, et al. Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study. BMJ. 2018;363:k4764.

Khazen M, Mirica M, Carlile N, Groisser A, Schiff GD. Developing a framework and electronic tool for communicating diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a qualitative study. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(3):e232218-e.

Knight SW, Trinkle J, Tschannen D. Hospital-to-homecare videoconference handoff: improved communication, coordination of care, and patient/family engagement. Home Healthc Now. 2019;37(4):198–207.

Lawrence V, Kimona K, Howard RJ, Serfaty MA, Wetherell JL, Livingston G, et al. Optimising the acceptability and feasibility of acceptance and commitment therapy for treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder in older adults. Age Ageing. 2019;48(5):741–50.

Louch G, Reynolds C, Moore S, Marsh C, Heyhoe J, Albutt A, et al. Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e031355.

MacDonald T, Jackson S, Charles M-C, Periel M, Jean-Baptiste M-V, Salomon A, et al. The fourth delay and community-driven solutions to reduce maternal mortality in rural Haiti: a community-based action research study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):254.

Mackintosh N, Sandall J, Collison C, Carter W, Harris J. Employing the arts for knowledge production and translation: Visualizing new possibilities for women speaking up about safety concerns in maternity. Health Expect. 2018;21(3):647–58.

Marchand K, Turuba R, Katan C, Brasset C, Fogarty O, Tallon C, et al. Becoming our young people’s case managers: caregivers’ experiences, needs, and ideas for improving opioid use treatments for young people using opioids. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2022;17(1):1–15.

Mazuz K, Biswas S. Co-designing technology and aging in a service setting: Developing an interpretive framework of how to interact with older age users. Gerontechnology. 2022;21(1):1–13.

McCahon D, Duncan P, Payne R, Horwood J. Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):293.

McMullen S, Panagioti M, Planner C, Giles S, Angelakis I, Keers RN, et al. Supporting carers to improve patient safety and maintain their well-being in transitions from mental health hospitals to the community: A prioritisation nominal group technique. Health Expect. 2023;26(5):2064–74.

Morris RL, Giles S, Campbell S. Involving patients and carers in patient safety in primary care: A qualitative study of a co-designed patient safety guide. Health Expect. 2023;26(2):630–9.

Morris RL, Stocks SJ, Alam R, Taylor S, Rolfe C, Glover SW, et al. Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e020870.

Nether KG, Thomas EJ, Khan A, Ottosen MJ, Yager L. Implementing a robust process improvement program in the neonatal intensive care unit to reduce harm. J Healthc Qual. 2022;44(1):23–30.

Powell C, Ismail H, Cleverley R, Taylor A, Breen L, Fylan B, et al. Patients as qualitative data analysts: Developing a method for a process evaluation of the “Improving the Safety and Continuity of Medicines management at care Transitions” (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised control trial. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1254–62.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell C, Ismail H, Davis M, Taylor A, Breen L, Fylan B, et al. Experiences of patients with heart failure with medicines at transition intervention: Findings from the process evaluation of the Improving the Safety and Continuity of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) programme. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2503–14.

Radecki B, Keen A, Miller J, McClure JK, Kara A. Innovating fall safety: engaging patients as experts. J Nurs Care Qual. 2020;35(3):220–6.

Rosgen BK, Plotnikoff KM, Krewulak KD, Shahid A, Hernandez L, Sept BG, et al. Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):10.

Schenk EC, Bryant RA, Van Son CR, Odom-Maryon T. Developing an intervention to reduce harm in hospitalized patients: patients and families in research. J Nurs Care Qual. 2019;34(3):273–8.

Spazzapan M, Vijayakumar B, Stewart CE. A bit about me: Bedside boards to create a culture of patient-centered care in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). J Healthc Risk Manag. 2020;39(3):11–9.

Stoll JA, Ranahan M, Richbart MT, Brennan-Taylor MK, Taylor JS, Brady L, et al. Development of video animations to encourage patient-driven deprescribing: A team alice study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(11):2716–23.

Subbe CP, Tomos H, Jones GM, Barach P. Express check-in: developing a personal health record for patients admitted to hospital with medical emergencies: a mixed-method feasibility study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33(3):121.

Tai D, Li E, Liu-Ambrose T, Bansback N, Sadatsafavi M, Davis JC. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to support adherence to falls prevention clinic recommendations: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:2105–21.

Thakur T, Chewning B, Zetes N, Lee JTY. Involving caregivers in design and assessment of opioid risk and safety communication intervention in children. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(10):2432–6.

Thomas J, Dahm MR, Li J, Georgiou A. Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):222–33.

Tremblay MC, Bradette-Laplante M, Witteman HO, Dogba MJ, Breault P, Paquette JS, et al. Providing culturally safe care to indigenous people living with diabetes: Identifying barriers and enablers from different perspectives. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):296–306.

Troya MI, Dikomitis L, Babatunde OO, Bartlam B, Chew-Graham CA. Understanding self-harm in older adults: A qualitative study. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;12:52–61.

Tyler N, Giles S, Daker-White G, McManus BC, Panagioti M. A patient and public involvement workshop using visual art and priority setting to provide patients with a voice to describe quality and safety concerns: Vitamin B12 deficiency and pernicious anaemia. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):87–94.

Tyler N, Planner C, Shears B, Hernan A, Panagioti M, Giles S. Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and think aloud study. Health Expect. 2023;26(3):1149–58.

Van den Bulck SA, Vankrunkelsven P, Goderis G, Van Pottelbergh G, Swerts J, Panis K, et al. Developing quality indicators for Chronic Kidney Disease in primary care, extractable from the Electronic Medical Record. A Rand-modified Delphi method. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):161.

Van Strien-Knippenberg IS, Boshuizen MCS, Determann D, de Boer JH, Damman OC. Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care. Health Expect. 2022;25(4):1664–77.

Wilson NA, Reich AJ, Graham J, Bhatt DL, Nguyen LL, Weissman JS. Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1391–402.

Winterberg AV, Lane B, Hill LM, Varughese AM. Optimizing Pediatric Induction Experiences Using Human-centered Design. J Perianesth Nurs. 2022;37(1):48–52.

Yang R, Donaldson GW, Edelman LS, Cloyes KG, Sanders NA, Pepper GA. Fear of older adult falling questionnaire for caregivers (FOAFQ-CG): Evidence from content validity and item-response theory graded-response modelling. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(10):2768–80.

Young A, Menon D, Street J, Al-Hertani W, Stafinski T. A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co-designed by Canadian patients and caregivers. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):973–80.

Yuen EYN, Street M, Abdelrazek M, Blencowe P, Etienne G, Liskaser R, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of a digital App to enhance patient-centred nursing handover: A simulation study. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(19–20):7626–37.

Jo S, Nabatchi T. Coproducing healthcare: individual-level impacts of engaging citizens to develop recommendations for reducing diagnostic error. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(3):354–75.

O’Hara JK, Reynolds C, Moore S, Armitage G, Sheard L, Marsh C, et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(9):673–82.

de Jong LD, Francis-Coad J, Wortham C, Haines TP, Skelton DA, Weselman T, et al. Evaluating audio-visual falls prevention messages with community-dwelling older people using a World Cafe forum approach. BMC Geriatrics. 2019;19(1):345.

O’Donnell D, Shé ÉN, McCarthy M, Thornton S, Doran T, Smith F, et al. Enabling public, patient and practitioner involvement in co-designing frailty pathways in the acute care setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):797.

Russ S, Latif Z, Hazell A, Ogunmuyiwa H, Tapper J, Wachuku-King S, et al. A Smartphone app designed to empower patients to contribute toward safer surgical care: community-based evaluation using a participatory approach. Jmir Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(1):e12859.

Mazuz K, Biswas S, Lindner U. Developing self-management application of fall prevention among older adults: a content and usability evaluation. Front Digital Health. 2020;2:11.

Hjelmfors L, Strömberg A, Friedrichsen M, Sandgren A, Mårtensson J, Jaarsma T. Using co-design to develop an intervention to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory and end-of-life care. Bmc Palliat Care. 2018;17:17.

Horgan S, Hegarty J, Andrews E, Hooton C, Drennan J. Impact of a quality improvement intervention on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: Pre-test-post-test design. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(15–16):4932–46.

Tyler N, Wright N, Grundy A, Waring J. Developing a core outcome set for interventions to improve discharge from mental health inpatient services: a survey, Delphi and consensus meeting with key stakeholder groups. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e034215.

Ward ME, De Brún A, Beirne D, Conway C, Cunningham U, English A, et al. Using Co-Design to Develop a Collective Leadership Intervention for Healthcare Teams to Improve Safety Culture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(6):1182.

Berthelsen DB, Simon LS, Ioannidis JPA, Voshaar M, Richards P, Goel N, et al. Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: outcome of the OMERACT safety working group. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023;63:152288.

Okkenhaug A, Tritter JQ, Landstad BJ. Developing a research tool to detect iatrogenic adverse events in psychiatric health care by involving service users and health professionals. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2023;00:1–12.

Musbahi A, Clyde D, Small P, Courtney M, Mahawar K, Lamb PJ, et al. A systematic review of patient and public involvement (PPI) in bariatric research trials: the need for more work. Obes Surg. 2022;32(11):3740–51.

Patel VA, Shelswell J, Hillyard N, Pavitt S, Barber SK. A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research. J Orthod. 2021;48(1):42–51.

Price A, Schroter S, Snow R, Hicks M, Harmston R, Staniszewska S, et al. Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020452.

Amadea T, Anne-Marie B, Louise L. A researcher’s guide to patient and public involvement. 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is funded as part of the Collective Leadership and Safety Cultures (Co-Lead) research programme which is funded by the Irish Health Research Board, grant reference number RL-2015–1588 and the Health Service Executive. The funders had no role in the study conceptualisation, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Sahar Hammoud, Laith Alsabek, Lisa Rogers & Eilish McAuliffe

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland

Laith Alsabek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.H and E.M.A designed the study. S.H developed the search strategies with feedback from L.A, L.R, and E.M.A. S.H conducted all searches. S.H and L.A screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of PPI reporting. S.H analysed the data with feedback from E.M.A. S.H drafted the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the submitted manuscript. All authors agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Sahar Hammoud .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hammoud, S., Alsabek, L., Rogers, L. et al. Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 532 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11021-z

Download citation

Received : 10 January 2024

Accepted : 21 April 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11021-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Patient and public involvement
• Patient participation
• Research reporting
• Research involvement

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Evaluation of vegetable green logistics in lanling county of china based on dematel-anp-fce model provisionally accepted.

• 1 Qingdao Agricultural University, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: Due to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, noise pollution, and vegetable waste pollution during the transportation of vegetables, it is not conducive to the sustainable development of the environment. To mitigate the pollution of the environment during transportation, vegetable green logistics plays a pivotal role in promoting both environmental sustainability and high-quality economic development. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the development of vegetable green logistics.Methods: This research builds a DEMATEL-ANP-FCE model to scientifically assess the development of vegetable green logistics in Lanling County. In the first place, the model uses DEMATEL to verify the relationship and degree of influence between the primary indexes. In the second place, the ANP approach with Super Decisions software to determine the weights of the indexes at each level. Lastly, evaluating and scoring vegetable green logistics in Lanling County based on FCE.Results and Discussion: The results of the study show that there is an interaction relationship between the primary evaluation indexes, and its evaluation score is low, the vegetable logistics in Lanling County has not reached the degree of greening. Accordingly, the evaluation results obtained by the DEMATEL-ANP-FCE model in this work are in line with the actual situation of vegetable green logistics in Lanling County, which verifies that the model has good applicability. Moreover, managerial contributions for promoting the development of vegetable green logistics in Lanling County are put forward in response to the evaluation situation. expecting to enhance the greening level of vegetable logistical development and advance agricultural sustainability. Finally, all four questions raised in this paper are well addressed. This study also provides a new perspective and evaluation model for future related research.

Keywords: Lanling County1, vegetables2, green logistics3, DEMATEL-ANP-FCE model4, evaluation5

Received: 08 Mar 2024; Accepted: 26 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Wang, Liu, Lu and Cui. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. hongzhi Wang, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China Miss. Zhaoli Liu, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China Dr. Hailong Cui, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China

People also looked at