'Although NICE agrees that respect for autonomy and individual choice are important for the NHS and its users, this should not mean that NHS users as a whole are disadvantaged by guidance recommending interventions that are not clinically and/or cost-effective.'
Use direct instructions for recommendations of this type where possible (see section 9.3.1), rather than using the word 'could'.
Use 'consider' to indicate that the recommendation is less strong than a 'should' recommendation.
Consider combination chemotherapy to treat patients with advanced breast cancer for whom a greater probability of response is important and who understand and are likely to tolerate the additional toxicity.
Consider carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine but be aware of the risk of exacerbating myoclonic or absence seizures.
Do not use 'consider offering', because of potential confusion with the wording of strong recommendations. Also, it might be misinterpreted to mean that a healthcare professional may consider offering an intervention without discussing it with the patient.
To minimise confusion, only use 'consider' to indicate the strength of a recommendation. Avoid other possible uses of 'consider'. For example, if a particular clinical sign or symptom should make a healthcare professional think about a diagnosis, use 'be aware of the possible diagnosis…', 'explore a diagnosis of…' or similar, rather than 'consider a diagnosis of'. Use 'take other factors into account' or similar, instead of 'consider other factors'. 'Assess' and 'think about' are other possible alternatives to 'consider'.
To emphasise the patient's role in decision-making and the need for them to consent to treatment, generally use verbs such as 'offer', 'consider' and 'discuss' in recommendations, rather than 'prescribe' or 'give'. As described above, 'consider' is used for recommendations on interventions that could be used, and implies that more discussion will be needed.
Use 'people' or 'patients' rather than 'individuals', 'cases' or 'subjects'. Where possible, use 'people' rather than 'patients' for people with mental health problems or chronic conditions. 'Service users' can be used for people with mental health problems if 'patients' is the only alternative. Do not use 'patients' in relation to healthy pregnant women.
The NICE guideline includes a standard section on patient-centred care that covers informed consent and taking into account the patient's individual needs. This section also cross-refers to NICE guidance on patient experience in adult NHS services , which covers subjects such as treating the person as an individual, communication, information and shared decision-making. NICE has also produced guidance on service user experience in adult mental health , which is cross-referred to in guidelines on mental health. The patient experience and service user experience guidance can be cross-referred to in recommendations, but specific recommendations should not be made on issues covered in that guidance unless there are particular reasons to do so that relate to the guideline topic. Examples include:
if there are issues relating to provision of information to patients, or to patients' support needs, that are specific to the condition covered by the guideline
if certain drugs are prescribed 'off-label' (see section 9.3.6.3 ) and more detailed forms of consent than usual are required from patients.
In general, follow the principles of effective writing as described in the 'Writing for NICE' booklet, which is available on the NICE webboard for NCCs.
Avoid vague words and phrases, such as 'may' and 'can', or general statements such as 'is recommended', 'is useful/helpful', 'is needed' and 'treatment options include'. Instead, use an active verb that tells readers what they should do, and indicates the strength of the recommendation.
Instead of 'an intervention may be offered', say 'consider the intervention'.
Instead of 'an intervention is recommended', say 'offer the intervention'.
Instead of 'an intervention is helpful', say 'offer the intervention' or 'consider the intervention' (see section 9.3.3).
'Appropriate' is often redundant: for example 'give appropriate advice', because we would never recommend giving inappropriate advice.
Guideline developers should follow NICE's standard procedure when referring to drugs. This includes using standard wording when off-label use of drugs is recommended.
Give the recommended international non-proprietary name (rINN), as listed in the British national formulary (BNF). Usually, only the generic name is needed. Occasionally (for example, if referring to a specific preparation or device), the proprietary name may be given in parentheses at first mention. Do not give the manufacturer's name.
Readers are expected to refer to the summary of product characteristics (SPC) for details of dosages. Include dosage information only if there is evidence that a particular drug is often prescribed at the wrong dosage, or there is clear evidence about the effectiveness of different dose levels. If off-label use is being recommended and there is no relevant dosage information in the BNF, include details of the dosage regimen in the full guideline. SPCs can be found in the Electronic Medicines Compendium .
Make it clear if the recommended use is outside the drug's licensed indication ('off label').
Recommendations are usually about the uses of drugs (often referred to as the licensed indications) for which the drug regulatory authority has granted a marketing authorisation, either in the UK or under the European centralised authorisation procedure. However, there are clinical situations when the use of a drug off-label may be judged by the prescriber to be in the best clinical interests of the patient. Off-label use may be recommended if the clinical need cannot be met by a licensed product and there is a sufficient evidence base and/or experience of using the drug to demonstrate its safety and efficacy to support this. Off-label prescribing is particularly common in pregnant women and in children and young people (see below), as these groups have often been excluded from clinical trials during drug development. When prescribing a drug off-label, the prescriber should follow relevant professional guidance (for example, the General Medical Council's Good practice in prescribing medicines – guidance for doctors ) and make a clinical judgement, taking full responsibility for the decision for the patient under his or her direct care. In addition, the patient (or those with authority to give consent on their behalf) should be made fully aware of these factors and provide informed consent, which should be documented by the prescriber.
A licensed drug is accompanied by an SPC, which describes the indications, cautions and contraindications for a drug based on an assessment of safety, quality and efficacy by the regulatory authority. The NCC and GDG should check recommended uses against the licensed indications listed in the SPC, and include a footnote if the drug does not have a UK marketing authorisation for the use being recommended. The footnote should make it clear that the drug is not licensed for the stated use.
This standard wording for the footnote captures the above points:
At the time of publication ([month year]), [name of drug] did not have a UK marketing authorisation for this indication. The prescriber should follow relevant professional guidance, taking full responsibility for the decision. Informed consent should be obtained and documented. See the General Medical Council's Good practice in prescribing medicines – guidance for doctors for further information.
Additional information can be added as needed – for example, if off-label use is recommended and the drug is commonly used in UK clinical practice, a phrase such as 'Although this use is common in UK clinical practice' can be added. Other examples of footnote wording are shown in box 9.1. In cases where the SPC for a drug specifically mentions a caution or contraindication for its use but the GDG wishes to recommend the drug, this should be stated clearly in the recommendation or footnote. The evidence that the GDG has considered in reaching the conclusion that use in these circumstances can be justified should be clearly set out in the full guideline.
If a guideline includes recommendations for off-label use of drugs, the introduction to the NICE version should include standard wording (as in the NICE guideline template) about the responsibilities of the prescriber and the need to follow relevant professional guidance (for example, the General Medical Council's Good practice in prescribing medicines – guidance for doctors ).
If there is no information on dosage regimens available in a recognised source (such as the BNF), the NCC should document dosage information in the full guideline and alert the NICE implementation team to ensure that this is disseminated to prescribers.
Prescribing drugs outside their licensed indications to children and young people
In certain circumstances drugs are prescribed to children and young people outside their licensed indications (off-label use) because the clinical need cannot be met by licensed drugs; for example, for an indication not specified in the marketing authorisation, or administration of a different dose. The Standing Committee on Medicines (a joint committee of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacists Group) has issued a policy statement on the use of unlicensed drugs and the use of licensed drugs for unlicensed applications in children and young people. This states clearly that such use is necessary in paediatric practice and that doctors are legally allowed to prescribe drugs outside their licensed indications where there are no suitable alternatives and where use is justified by a responsible body of professional opinion (Joint Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health/Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacists Group Standing Committee on Medicines 2010).
Therefore, where there is no alternative treatment and only where there is a sufficient evidence base and/or experience of using the drug to demonstrate its safety and efficacy, a clinical guideline may recommend use of a drug outside its licensed indications for treating a child or young person. It is expected that prescribers will use the SPC to inform their prescribing decisions for individual patients, and they should be able to justify using a drug outside its licensed indications. Informed consent should be obtained from the child and/or their parent or guardian as appropriate and documented.
Footnotes for recommendations addressing off label-use of drugs in children and young people should follow the format described above and in box 9.1.
: At the time of publication (August 2011), spironolactone did not have a UK marketing authorisation for this indication. The prescriber should follow relevant professional guidance, taking full responsibility for the decision. Informed consent should be obtained and documented. See the General Medical Council's for further information. [Adapted from: . NICE clinical guideline 127 (2011).] Vaginal PGE has been used in UK practice for many years in women with ruptured membranes. However, the SPCs (July 2008) advise that in this situation, vaginal PGE is either not recommended or should be used with caution, depending on the preparation (gel, tablet or pessary). Healthcare professionals should refer to the individual SPCs before prescribing vaginal PGE for women with ruptured membranes. The prescriber should follow relevant professional guidance, taking full responsibility for the decision. Informed consent should be obtained and documented. See the General Medical Council's for further information. [Adapted from: . NICE clinical guideline 70 (2008).]
Metformin is used in UK clinical practice in the management of diabetes in pregnancy and lactation. Clinical experience supports its effectiveness and safety but this is not currently reflected in the SPC. The SPC (March 2008) advises that when a patient plans to become pregnant and during pregnancy, diabetes should not be treated with metformin but insulin should be used to maintain blood glucose levels. For use of metformin in these situations, the prescriber should follow relevant professional guidance, taking full responsibility for the decision. Informed consent should be obtained and documented. See the General Medical Council's for further information. [Adapted from: . NICE clinical guideline 63 (2008).] |
Guideline developers should follow NICE's standard advice for recommendations on waiting times. It is also acceptable to make recommendations that advise stopping the use of an ineffective intervention.
Avoid giving targets for waiting and referral times: refer to relevant targets set by the Department of Health or the Welsh Government, and where possible direct readers to the relevant document rather than including the target in the recommendation. This is because policy can change, making a guideline that includes such targets out of date. If no target exists, recommendations may include a maximum time if the GDG considers this to be essential.
Sometimes a recommendation will need to specify a waiting time, referral time or time of intervention because this relates to the safety and/or effectiveness of a clinical intervention. In this case, check that the recommendation does not conflict with relevant targets set by the Department of Health or the Welsh Government and ensure that the clinical reason for specifying the time is made clear.
Recommend stopping ineffective interventions: state explicitly if particular treatments or activities should not be carried out or should be stopped (see box 9.2).
Do not routinely offer pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients with cancer having oncological treatment who are ambulant. [From: . NICE clinical guideline 92 (2010).] |
Do not use tables to summarise several actions in one recommendation. Such summaries make it more difficult to link the recommended actions to the evidence summaries. A recommendation may include a small table to improve clarity; for example, to present information that should be shared with patients, or if the information is most easily understood when tabulated. An example is shown in box 9.3.
Use predicted 6-month mortality to categorise the risk of future adverse cardiovascular events as follows: | |
|
|
1.5% or below | Lowest |
>1.5 to 3.0% | Low |
>3.0 to 6.0% | Intermediate |
>6.0 to 9.0% | High |
over 9.0% | Highest |
[From: Unstable angina and NSTEMI: the early management of unstable angina and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction . NICE clinical guideline 94 (2010).]
NICE's standard clinical guidelines can cover large clinical areas and, as a result, often contain a considerable number of recommendations relevant to the many review questions. The GDG will need to identify a subset of these recommendations as key priorities for implementation. These may be used to guide implementation activities (see chapter 13 ) and may be useful in the subsequent development of NICE quality standards. The number of recommendations prioritised in this way will vary depending on the guideline, but is normally between 5 and 10. There is no 'ranking' within this set of recommendations.
Key priorities for implementation are usually those that are likely to do at least one of the following:
have a high impact on outcomes that are important to patients
have a high impact on reducing variation in care and outcomes
set challenging but achievable expectations of health services
focus on key infrastructural and clinical requirements for high-quality care
include actions that are measurable
lead to more efficient use of NHS resources
promote patient choice
promote equality.
In addition, the GDG should attempt to identify recommendations that are particularly likely to benefit from support from NICE's implementation programme. Criteria overlap with those above, but include whether a recommendation:
relates to an intervention that is not part of routine care
requires changes in service delivery
requires retraining of staff or the development of new skills and competencies
highlights the need for practice to change
affects and needs to be implemented across a number of agencies or settings (complex interactions)
may be viewed as potentially contentious, or difficult to implement for other reasons.
There should be a clear record of which criteria were considered particularly important by the GDG for each prioritised recommendation. This should be reported in a short paragraph in the full guideline.
The GDG is likely to identify areas in which there are uncertainties or where robust evidence is lacking. NICE has published a Research recommendations process and methods guide , which details the approach to be used across NICE's guidance-producing programmes to identify key uncertainties and associated research recommendations.
For standard clinical guidelines where there may be many hundreds of uncertainties, it will not be possible to document every uncertainty in detail. Similarly, although GDGs could write research recommendations for dealing with each uncertainty, this is not likely to be feasible. Therefore the GDG should select up to five key research recommendations for inclusion in the NICE version of the guideline; more research recommendations may be listed in the full guideline. Further information about how these should be derived can be found in the research recommendation process and methods guide.
Brown P, Brunnhuber K, Chalkidou K et al. (2006) How to formulate research recommendations. British Medical Journal 333: 804–6
Claxton K, Sculpher MJ (2006) Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 24: 1055–68
Glasziou P, Del Mar C, Salisbury J (2003) Evidence-based medicine workbook. London: British Medical Journal Books
Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) [online]
Joint Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health/Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacists Group Standing Committee on Medicines (2010) The use of unlicensed medicines or licensed medicines for unlicensed applications in paediatric practice [online]
Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ (2006) When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Annals of Internal Medicine 144: 850–5
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone
Schünemann HJ, Best D, Vist G et al. for the GRADE Working Group (2003) Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 169: 677–80
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2002) SIGN 50. A guideline developer's handbook. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
[ 14 ] Information throughout this manual relating to the role of the National Collaborating Centres in guideline development also applies to the Internal Clinical Guidelines Programme at NICE.
Not including an evaluation plan is one of the most common mistakes that people make in grant writing. Regardless of whether your funding solicitation requires a separate section for the plan or not, you will need to include some type of assessment strategy in your proposal. What is an evaluation plan, and how is it used? Read on to learn what assessments are and why they're critical in your grant!
The two most common types of evaluation are formative and summative assessments.
When former DARPA director, George Heilmeier, developed his seminal grant review criteria, the final criterion was: “What are the mid-term and final ‘exams’ to check for success?” Funding agencies are interested in supporting exciting research, but they also want to know their investment will succeed. So when applying for funding, it's critical to explain how you will determine whether you've achieved your goal. Funding agencies often request regular reports to assess your progress, but minimally, they require a final report to determine the overall success of your project. The formative and summative assessments you build into your project are the "checks for success” in your research journey, and are critical to determining the efficacy of your project both during and at the end of the funding period.
Solicitations may include guidelines for evaluation plans, but generally, each objective and activity should include a means of assessment. Each activity is a step taken to toward your overall research goals (objectives), so be sure to explain how you will know each step is heading in the right direction. Since outreach and education programs typically have their own activities, they should also include means of assessment.
Evaluation plans show reviewers that you’ve carefully planned your activities and are invested in their success. Not only do assessments help reviewers, they also help you reflect and develop your research—what is working, what isn’t, what needs changing now, and what should be changed in future work. Assessment is critical, so don’t forget to include an evaluation plan in your next proposal!
Table of Contents
Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.
Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.
This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.
A research proposal¹ ,² can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.
With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.
A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.
Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³
Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.
The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.
The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.
The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.
Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.
If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹
1. Introduction
This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.
2. Literature review
This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.
3. Objectives
Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.
4. Research design and methodology
Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.
5. Ethical considerations
This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.
6. Budget/funding
Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.
7. Appendices
This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.
8. Citations
Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5
Key Takeaways
Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:
Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?
A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6
Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?
A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.
Q3. How long should a research proposal be?
A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.
Arts programs | 1,000-1,500 | |
University of Birmingham | Law School programs | 2,500 |
PhD | 2,500 | |
2,000 | ||
Research degrees | 2,000-3,500 |
Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?
A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7
Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.
This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.
References
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
You may also like, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.
USPSTF indicates US Preventive Services Task Force.
Yellow shaded cells indicate persons to whom the C grade recommendation applies. CVD indicates cardiovascular disease; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.
eFigure. US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grades and Levels of Evidence
Select your interests.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease : US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement . JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577–1584. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.4983
© 2024
Importance Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the US, accounting for more than 1 in 4 deaths. Each year, an estimated 605 000 people in the US have a first myocardial infarction and an estimated 610 000 experience a first stroke.
Objective To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD. The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms (particularly bleeding) associated with aspirin use. The USPSTF also commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level.
Population Adults 40 years or older without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD (including history of myocardial infarction or stroke) who are not at increased risk for bleeding (eg, no history of gastrointestinal ulcers, recent bleeding, other medical conditions, or use of medications that increase bleeding risk).
Evidence Assessment The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults 60 years or older has no net benefit.
Recommendation The decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use in this group is small. Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older. (D recommendation)
See the Summary of Recommendations figure.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the US, accounting for more than 1 in 4 deaths. 1 Each year, an estimated 605 000 people in the US have a first myocardial infarction and an estimated 610 000 experience a first stroke. 2
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit .
The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults 60 years or older has no net benefit .
See the Table for more information on the USPSTF recommendation rationale and assessment and the eFigure in the Supplement for information on the recommendation grade. See Figure 1 for a summary of the recommendation for clinicians. For more details on the methods the USPSTF uses to determine the net benefit, see the USPSTF Procedure Manual. 3
This recommendation applies to adults 40 years or older without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD (including history of myocardial infarction or stroke) who are not at increased risk for bleeding (eg, no history of gastrointestinal ulcers, recent bleeding, other medical conditions, or use of medications that increase bleeding risk). In this recommendation statement, CVD risk and the net benefits of aspirin use are discussed using the terms “men” and “women,” although it is likely that CVD risk and net benefit estimates are driven by sex (ie, male/female) rather than gender identity.
Older age is one of the strongest risk factors for CVD. Men have a higher overall CVD disease burden, although women experience higher mortality from certain cardiovascular events, such as stroke. Men tend to experience CVD events earlier in life compared with women. The burden of CVD also differs by race and ethnicity. Among both sexes, Black persons have the highest prevalence of CVD. 2
The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Pooled Cohort Equations may be used to estimate 10-year risk of CVD. The ACC/AHA risk estimator is, to date, the only US-based CVD risk prediction tool that has published external validation studies in other US-based populations. 4 The estimator has separate equations based on sex and for Black persons and non-Black persons, which include the risk factors of age, cholesterol levels, systolic blood pressure level, antihypertension treatment, presence of diabetes, and smoking status, and focuses on hard clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction and death from coronary heart disease; ischemic stroke and stroke-related death) as the outcomes of interest. It is important to note that increasing age heavily influences the ACC/AHA estimated 10-year CVD event risk. The risk prediction equations generally show higher risk for Black persons than White persons. 4 The USPSTF recognizes that race is a social construct and an imperfect proxy for social determinants of health and the effects of structural racism. Concerns about calibration exist, with many external validation studies showing overprediction in broad populations (men and women across racial and ethnic groups). 5 - 7 Limited evidence also suggests underprediction in disadvantaged communities 8 , 9 that could lead to underutilization of preventive therapies. Clinicians should recognize that predictions of 10-year CVD events using the Pooled Cohort Equations are estimates.
The risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and hemorrhagic stroke, with or without aspirin use, increases with older age. Other risk factors include male sex, diabetes, history of gastrointestinal issues (such as peptic ulcer disease), liver disease, smoking, and elevated blood pressure. Certain medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, and anticoagulants, increase the risk of bleeding. 10 - 13 These risk factors should be considered in the overall decision about whether to start or continue aspirin therapy.
The benefits of aspirin for CVD prevention appear similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and for all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). 14 A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the US.
Because CVD risk estimation is imprecise and imperfect at the individual level, the USPSTF suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk).
In addition to age and estimated level of CVD risk, decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits (decreasing an individual’s risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke) than the potential harms (the risk of gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding) may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than on the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use.
Annual bleeding events in individuals without risk factors for increased bleeding (eg, history of gastrointestinal bleeding risk, history of peptic ulcer disease, or use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or corticosteroids) are rare, but risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. 12 For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, generally become progressively smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, and modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years.
Million Hearts 2022 is a national initiative to prevent 1 million myocardial infarctions and strokes within 5 years. It focuses on implementing a small set of evidence-based priorities and targets that can improve cardiovascular health for all ( https://millionhearts.hhs.gov/ ).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has resources related to risk of heart disease and the prevention of heart disease for patients and health professionals ( https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/index.htm ).
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has patient resources related to coronary heart disease ( https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/coronary-heart-disease ).
The USPSTF has made several other recommendations on CVD prevention, including statin use to prevent CVD, 15 smoking cessation, 16 counseling to promote a healthful diet and physical activity in persons with and without cardiovascular risk factors, 17 , 18 and interventions to prevent obesity-related morbidity and mortality, 19 as well as screening for high blood pressure 20 and diabetes. 21 The USPSTF has also made a recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). 22
This recommendation replaces the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and CRC. 23 In 2016, the USPSTF recommended initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults aged 50 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, are not at increased risk for bleeding, have a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily for at least 10 years, and that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use in adults aged 60 to 69 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one. The USPSTF previously found that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than 50 years or adults 70 years or older.
For the current recommendation, the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use. The USPSTF recommends that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one and recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older. Based on new trial evidence, 24 updated analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, 14 and longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (I.-M. Lee, ScD, Harvard Medical School, written communication, November 23, 2020), the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality.
To update its 2016 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD. The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use. 14 , 25
In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 26 , 27
The USPSTF considered 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 161 680 participants that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. 14 , 25 Most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day and included a balanced number of male and female participants and a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians' Health Study 28 to 74 years in the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial. 24
The evidence showed that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD was associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results were similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin. 14 Since low-dose aspirin is most relevant to current practice, the analyses below report outcomes pooling studies of low-dose aspirin use. Pooled effect estimates of studies using low-dose aspirin were also used to inform the parameters and assumptions of the microsimulation modeling study. 26 , 27
A pooled analysis of 11 trials (n = 134 470) showed that low-dose aspirin use was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (Peto odds ratio [OR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.96]). Similarly, a pooled analysis of 5 trials (n = 54 947) demonstrated that low-dose aspirin use was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of nonfatal ischemic stroke (Peto OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-1.00]; P = .046). Fatal cardiovascular events were less common, so pooled analyses showed that low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant effect on fatal myocardial infarction, fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause mortality (at 3.6 to 10.1 years of follow-up). 14 , 25 Although evidence does not suggest that the relative effect of aspirin on CVD outcomes is modified by baseline CVD risk, the absolute magnitude of the benefit is greater in persons at higher CVD risk.
New RCT data, as well as newly available information on the age distribution of participants in the WHS, show that almost 22 000 participants younger than 50 years and more than 37 000 participants 70 years or older were included in the CVD prevention trials. Most trials with age subanalyses did not find a statistically significant difference in the relative effect of aspirin on CVD outcomes by age. 14 , 25 The USPSTF thus concluded that evidence on the benefits of aspirin on CVD outcomes was adequate for all groups, including adults aged 40 to 49 years and adults 70 years or older.
The evidence review found fewer studies reporting on the effects of aspirin use on CRC incidence or mortality. Four studies conducted in primary CVD prevention populations found no association between aspirin use and CRC incidence at up to approximately 10 years of follow-up. 14 , 25 Only 1 trial, the WHS (n = 39 876), reported on the effect of low-dose aspirin use on CRC incidence beyond 10 years by including posttrial observational follow-up. Although the WHS reported a lower incidence of CRC at 17.5 years of follow-up (Peto OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.98]), 29 recent data showed that this effect did not persist from 17.5 to 26 years of follow-up (I.-M. Lee, ScD, Harvard Medical School, written communication, November 23, 2020). Two RCTs, ASPREE 24 and WHS (I.-M. Lee, ScD, Harvard Medical School, written communication, November 23, 2020), reported CRC mortality during the trial phase. ASPREE reported that aspirin use was associated with statistically significantly higher CRC mortality at 4.7 years of follow-up (Peto OR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.02-2.95]), while the WHS did not find a statistically significant increase in CRC mortality at 10 years. When including observational follow-up beyond the trial phase, 2 trials of low-dose aspirin use reported reductions in CRC mortality. In the Thrombosis Prevention Trial 30 , 31 (n = 5085), low-dose aspirin use was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of CRC mortality at 18.3 years of follow-up (Peto OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), and the WHS reported lower CRC mortality at 17.5 years of follow-up that was not statistically significant (Peto OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.64-1.16]) and was attenuated from 17.5 to 26 years of follow-up (I.-M. Lee, ScD, Harvard Medical School, written communication, November 23, 2020).
The body of evidence on the effects of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality is limited by several factors. Overall, only a small number of trials reported on CRC outcomes. The ASPREE trial in older adults found aspirin use to be associated with an increased risk of CRC mortality. 24 Although this finding does not constitute firm evidence that aspirin use is associated with increased risk of CRC mortality, it is one factor that calls into question whether aspirin use has a beneficial effect on CRC outcomes. Longer-term follow-up data suggesting that aspirin use is associated with lower CRC risk is heavily weighted by 1 trial conducted in women only, and the evidence on CRC mortality is limited by few CRC deaths. Additionally, posttrial follow-up data may be subject to biases, and in some cases, CRC outcomes data were collected by outside investigators. 14 , 25
The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin. Studies reported a variety of outcomes, including total major bleeds (defined as a composite of intracranial hemorrhage, major gastrointestinal bleeding, or major bleeding from other sites), major gastrointestinal bleeds (defined as a gastrointestinal bleed that required a transfusion, hospital admission, or resulted in death), extracranial bleeds (defined as major bleeding that was not intracranial), hemorrhagic stroke, and intracranial bleeds (defined as hemorrhagic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and subdural hemorrhage). 14 , 25
When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials (n = 119 130) showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding (Peto OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.38-1.80]). A pooled analysis of 11 trials (n = 134 470) showed an increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group (Peto OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.11-1.54]). Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke. 14 , 25
Data suggest that the increased incidence of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. 14 , 25 Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute incidence of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, increases with age, and more so in adults 60 years or older. Because of the very small number of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding events in trials and inconsistent reporting, it is uncertain whether aspirin use increases fatal gastrointestinal bleeding. 14 , 25
The USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use. 26 , 27 The model incorporated findings from the systematic review to inform its parameters and assumptions, including that daily low-dose (≤100 mg/d) aspirin use reduces the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke, increases the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, and has no effect on the risk of CVD mortality. As there was insufficient evidence that aspirin use reduces CRC incidence, the modeling study base case assumed no effect of aspirin on CRC incidence.
Modeling outcomes were stratified by age, decade of aspirin initiation (40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and 70-79 years), sex, and baseline 10-year CVD risk level (5% to 20%). When combined with primary trial data and pooled analyses from the systematic evidence review, the model provided additional information to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin use. The primary model outcomes were net quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained or lost over a lifetime as a result of aspirin use. Also considered was the effect of stopping aspirin that had been initiated for primary prevention over 5-year age intervals from ages 65 to 85 years. 26 , 27
Modeling data estimated that aspirin use in both men and women aged 40 to 59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60 to 69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative. In persons aged 70 to 79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk) ( Figure 2 ). 26 , 27 The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40 to 59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk and that initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons 60 years or older.
When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggested that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75 to 80 years. 26 , 27 It is important to note that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by persons in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by persons in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically would have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than persons at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use.
Aspirin’s mechanism of action to promote CVD prevention is well known. At lower doses, aspirin is an irreversible cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) enzyme inhibitor. At higher doses, aspirin also inhibits COX-2. Aspirin reduces the risk for atherothrombosis through the inhibition of platelet function (through COX-1 inhibition) and has been used widely for the prevention of CVD events, particularly for secondary prevention. 32 The COX-1 enzyme is also responsible for producing a variety of prostaglandins that protect the gastrointestinal mucosa. 33 By inhibiting this enzyme, aspirin use can promote gastrointestinal bleeding. 34 The mechanism for the possible antineoplastic effects of aspirin is not as well understood. 14
A draft version of this recommendation statement was posted for public comment on the USPSTF website from October 12 to November 8, 2021. In response to public comment, the USPSTF wants to restate that the focus of this recommendation is the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD and not for other indications. This recommendation only applies to persons who do not have a history of CVD, signs or symptoms of CVD, or other conditions for which aspirin may be indicated. Persons who are currently taking aspirin and have questions about why they are taking it, or whether they should continue or discontinue aspirin use, should discuss these questions with their clinician. Persons who are taking aspirin should not discontinue using it without consulting their clinician. For persons who are deciding with their clinician whether to continue or discontinue taking aspirin for primary prevention, clinicians may want to consider that person’s age, level of CVD risk and bleeding risk, preferences, and reasons for taking aspirin.
In response to public comment, the USPSTF clarified language about its assessment of the precision of CVD risk assessment and added information on factors that can be considered by clinicians and patients as they engage in shared decision-making about the initiation of aspirin use. Information on the evidence the USPSTF reviewed on the effect of aspirin on CRC incidence and mortality and how it considered the findings from the ASPREE trial can also be found in the Supporting Evidence section of this recommendation. Also, in response to public comment, the USPSTF wants to note that it did not review the emerging evidence on the effect of aspirin on COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
More research is needed to evaluate the following.
Improving the accuracy of CVD risk prediction in all racial and ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
The gastrointestinal bleeding risk associated with aspirin use in populations representative of the US primary CVD prevention population.
Characterizing the distribution of patient preferences across the spectrum of cardiovascular risk after patients are informed about the benefits and harms of aspirin.
The effects of low-dose aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality over the long term (10 to 20 years and longer) in primary prevention populations and in the context of current CRC screening practices.
The ACC/AHA recommends that low-dose aspirin use (75 to 100 mg/d) might be considered for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD among select adults aged 40 to 70 years at higher CVD risk but not at increased risk of bleeding. Low-dose aspirin use is not recommended on a routine basis for primary prevention of CVD in adults older than 70 years or among adults of any age who are at increased risk of bleeding. 35 The American Academy of Family Physicians supports the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use. 36
Corresponding Author: Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, 130 E 59th St, Ste 14C, New York, NY 10032 ( [email protected] ).
Accepted for Publication: March 21, 2022.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Karina W. Davidson, PhD, MASc; Michael J. Barry, MD; Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH; Michael Cabana, MD, MA, MPH; David Chelmow, MD; Tumaini Rucker Coker, MD, MBA; Esa M. Davis, MD, MPH; Katrina E. Donahue, MD, MPH; Carlos Roberto Jaén, MD, PhD, MS; Alex H. Krist, MD, MPH; Martha Kubik, PhD, RN; Li Li, MD, PhD, MPH; Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH; Lori Pbert, PhD; John M. Ruiz, PhD; James Stevermer, MD, MSPH; Chien-Wen Tseng, MD, MPH, MSEE; John B. Wong, MD.
Affiliations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members: Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York (Davidson); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Barry); University of California, Los Angeles (Mangione); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York (Cabana); Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (Chelmow, Krist); University of Washington, Seattle (Coker); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Davis); University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Donahue); University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (Jaén); Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia (Krist); George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia (Kubik); University of Virginia, Charlottesville (Li); New York University, New York, New York (Ogedegbe); University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Pbert); University of Arizona, Tucson (Ruiz); University of Missouri, Columbia (Stevermer); University of Hawaii, Honolulu (Tseng); Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Wong).
Author Contributions: Dr Davidson had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The USPSTF members contributed equally to the recommendation statement.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/conflict-of-interest-disclosures . All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings.
Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an Evidence-based Practice Center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of the final recommendation statement and its submission for publication. AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final recommendation statement or the decision to submit for publication.
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the US government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Additional Contributions: We thank Howard Tracer, MD (AHRQ), who contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and Lisa Nicolella, MA (AHRQ), who assisted with coordination and editing.
Additional Information: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific preventive care services for patients without obvious related signs or symptoms. It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision-making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms. Published by JAMA®—Journal of the American Medical Association under arrangement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). ©2022 AMA and United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), by assignment from the members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). All rights reserved.
We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalize content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. You can also read our privacy policy , We use cookies to ensure the best experience for you on our website.
By commenting, you agree to the Prohibited Content Policy
Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis., download ethealthworld app.
Social security issues 2 alerts.
The Social Security Administration recently issued two alerts about the program.
Many people who access information about their Social Security benefits through a “my Social Security” account on the Social Security website (which I recommend doing) will have to access their accounts in a different way.
The SSA says that anyone who created an account before September 18, 2021, soon will have to access the account through either login.gov or ID.me .
These are two Credential Service Providers that many other government online services use to provide additional security and protection and simplify sign-in experiences.
If you already have an account with either of those services, you won’t need to create a new one. Otherwise, at some point in the near future you’ll have to create an account with one of those services to access your my Social Security account. It’s best to create an account with those services sooner rather than later.
The other alert regards fraudulent reports you might have seen online or in emails.
The reports say that Social Security beneficiaries are due an additional $600 cost of living adjustment (COLA) during 2024 to supplement the COLA implemented at the start of the year. Some reports say beneficiaries are due to receive a $600 stimulus check.
The reports simply are false. They apparently were generated by websites that try to attract a lot of public attention to maximize their rankings in online search engines. That helps these “content farms” charge more for the ads on their websites.
Nyt ‘strands’ hints, spangram and answers for wednesday, july 31st, trump vs. harris 2024 polls: harris leads trump by 1 point in latest survey.
The next real Social Security COLA will be announced in October and will take effect January 1, 2025.
One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.
Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.
Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.
COMMENTS
Recommendations for future research should be: Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable. Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid: Prevent plagiarism.
Recommendation in research example. See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own. Recommendation section. The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small ...
For example, recommendations from research on climate change can be used to develop policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. Program development: Research recommendations can guide the development of programs that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on education can be used to develop ...
Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations. 1. Understand the Research Question: Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study. 2.
Step 2: Analyse Your Findings. You have to examine your data and identify your key results. This analysis forms the foundation for your recommendations. Look for patterns and unexpected findings that might suggest new areas for other researchers to explore.
Crafting impactful recommendations is the key to unlocking the full potential of your study. By providing clear, actionable suggestions based on your findings, you can bridge the gap between research and real-world application. In this ultimate guide, we'll show you how to write recommendations that make a difference in your research report or ...
Author affiliations. "More research is needed" is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required. Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research.
For this reason you need to support your conclusions with structured, logical reasoning. Having drawn your conclusions you can then make recommendations. These should flow from your conclusions. They are suggestions about action that might be taken by people or organizations in the light of the conclusions that you have drawn from the results ...
how to apply research findings to real-world problems, helping to bridge the gap between research and practice. • Improving decision-making: Research recommendations help decision-makers make informed decisions based on the findings of research, leading to better outcomes and improved performance. • Enhancing accountability: Research ...
Summary of the findings. Restate briefly the work carried out, the aims and hypotheses or research questions. Highlight the most important findings. Evaluation of the study. State what you consider to be the achievements and limitations of your work. Assess how far the aims of your research have been satisfied.
Let the readers draw their own conclusions. Give recommendations. How to write a recommendation for your research paper. Should be concrete and specific. The recommendations should connect to your conclusion. Explain how the solution you suggested can contribute to solving the problems you stated.
Style and Grammar Guidelines. APA Style provides a foundation for effective scholarly communication because it helps writers present their ideas in a clear, concise, and inclusive manner. When style works best, ideas flow logically, sources are credited appropriately, and papers are organized predictably. People are described using language ...
Make sure your solutions cover all relevant areas within your research scope. Consider different contexts, stakeholders, and perspectives affected by the recommendations. Be thorough in identifying potential improvement areas and offering appropriate actions. Don't add new information to this part of your paper.
Recommendations in the research paper should come from your review and analysis For example It was observed that coaches interviewed were associated with the club were working with the club from the past 2-3 years only. This shows that the attrition rate of coaches is high and therefore clubs should work on reducing the turnover of coaches.
Guidelines for Writing Research Papers Writing a research paper requires time for researching, formulating research questions, outlining, drafting, and revising multiple times. The following guidelines are geared toward ... implications, and recommendations] by informing the reader of the facts of the study (Ammon, 2022).
Step 1: Restate the problem. The first task of your conclusion is to remind the reader of your research problem. You will have discussed this problem in depth throughout the body, but now the point is to zoom back out from the details to the bigger picture. While you are restating a problem you've already introduced, you should avoid phrasing ...
5. Select the research methodology. The researcher has to begin to formulate one or more hypotheses, research questions and. research objectives, decide on the type of data needed, and select the ...
A dissertation is a piece of original research, undertaken as a part of a program of study. In German and US universities, research training courses were introduced to prepare their students for undertaking research and the writing up of the research findings in the form of an extended report,
After all, writing and research are integral parts of the overall enterprise. Therefore, design a project with an ultimate paper firmly in mind. Include an outline of the paper in the initial project design documents to help form the research objectives, determine the logical flow of the experiments, and organize the materials and data to be used.
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
Abstract. Academic research can inform decision-makers on what actions to take or to avoid to make the world safer, more peaceful, and more equitable. There are many good works on bridging the gap between policymakers and academics but few on how scholars writing in academic journals can influence the policy process. In contrast to most policy-focused research, academic journals have long ...
Writing the recommendations is one of the most important steps in developing a clinical guideline. Many people read only the recommendations, so the wording must be concise, unambiguous and easy to translate into clinical practice. Each recommendation, or bullet point within a recommendation, should contain only one main action.
authors to present recommendations in a four compo-. nent for mat for for mulating well built clinical. questions around treatments: population, inter vention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO). In ...
Solicitations may include guidelines for evaluation plans, but generally, each objective and activity should include a means of assessment. Each activity is a step taken to toward your overall research goals (objectives), so be sure to explain how you will know each step is heading in the right direction.
Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5 The Planning Stage Manage your time efficiently.
This guide explains the focus, rigor, and relevance of qualitative research, highlighting its role in dissecting complex social phenomena and providing in-depth, human-centered insights. ... Fernandes C., Ferreira J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8 ...
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the following: development and review of the research plan, commission of the systematic evidence review from an Evidence-based Practice Center, coordination of expert review and public comment of the draft evidence report and draft recommendation statement, and the writing and preparation of ...
Regulatory Mechanism: The recommendations and guidelines of ACA include proposed course curricula for certificate, degree and diploma courses in acupuncture proposed template for rules and ...
I research/write about all facets of retirement/retirement planning. Following. Jul 26, 2024, 12:25pm EDT. Updated Jul 27, 2024, 04:14pm EDT ... Thanks for reading our community guidelines.
Guidelines for Writing a Research Paper Essay The research essay is a typical task in advanced education. The idea of the research essay at first seems straightforward yet it is truly not basic at all. The research essay drives you into the works of others and requests that you contrast their contemplations and your own. A paper writing for ...