articles about primary research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Published on January 14, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Primary research is a research method that relies on direct data collection , rather than relying on data that’s already been collected by someone else. In other words, primary research is any type of research that you undertake yourself, firsthand, while using data that has already been collected is called secondary research .

Primary research is often used in qualitative research , particularly in survey methodology, questionnaires, focus groups, and various types of interviews . While quantitative primary research does exist, it’s not as common.

Table of contents

When to use primary research, types of primary research, examples of primary research, advantages and disadvantages of primary research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Primary research is any research that you conduct yourself. It can be as simple as a 2-question survey, or as in-depth as a years-long longitudinal study . The only key is that data must be collected firsthand by you.

Primary research is often used to supplement or strengthen existing secondary research. It is usually exploratory in nature, concerned with examining a research question where no preexisting knowledge exists. It is also sometimes called original research for this reason.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Primary research can take many forms, but the most common types are:

• Surveys and questionnaires
• Observational studies
• Interviews and focus groups

Surveys and questionnaires collect information about a group of people by asking them questions and analyzing the results. They are a solid choice if your research topic seeks to investigate something about the characteristics, preferences, opinions, or beliefs of a group of people.

Surveys and questionnaires can take place online, in person, or through the mail. It is best to have a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions, and how the questions are phrased matters. Be sure to avoid leading questions, and ask any related questions in groups, starting with the most basic ones first.

Observational studies are an easy and popular way to answer a research question based purely on what you, the researcher, observes. If there are practical or ethical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , observational studies are often a good stopgap.

There are three types of observational studies: cross-sectional studies , cohort studies, and case-control studies. If you decide to conduct observational research, you can choose the one that’s best for you. All three are quite straightforward and easy to design—just beware of confounding variables and observer bias creeping into your analysis.

Similarly to surveys and questionnaires, interviews and focus groups also rely on asking questions to collect information about a group of people. However, how this is done is slightly different. Instead of sending your questions out into the world, interviews and focus groups involve two or more people—one of whom is you, the interviewer, who asks the questions.

There are 3 main types of interviews:

• Structured interviews ask predetermined questions in a predetermined order.
• Unstructured interviews are more flexible and free-flowing, proceeding based on the interviewee’s previous answers.
• Semi-structured interviews fall in between, asking a mix of predetermined questions and off-the-cuff questions.

While interviews are a rich source of information, they can also be deceptively challenging to do well. Be careful of interviewer bias creeping into your process. This is best mitigated by avoiding double-barreled questions and paying close attention to your tone and delivery while asking questions.

Alternatively, a focus group is a group interview, led by a moderator. Focus groups can provide more nuanced interactions than individual interviews, but their small sample size means that external validity is low.

Primary research can often be quite simple to pursue yourself. Here are a few examples of different research methods you can use to explore different topics.

Primary research is a great choice for many research projects, but it has distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of primary research

Advantages include:

• The ability to conduct really tailored, thorough research, down to the “nitty-gritty” of your topic . You decide what you want to study or observe and how to go about doing that.
• You maintain control over the quality of the data collected, and can ensure firsthand that it is objective, reliable , and valid .
• The ensuing results are yours, for you to disseminate as you see fit. You maintain proprietary control over what you find out, allowing you to share your findings with like-minded individuals or those conducting related research that interests you for replication or discussion purposes.

Disadvantages of primary research

Disadvantages include:

• In order to be done well, primary research can be very expensive and time consuming. If you are constrained in terms of time or funding, it can be very difficult to conduct your own high-quality primary research.
• Primary research is often insufficient as a standalone research method, requiring secondary research to bolster it.
• Primary research can be prone to various types of research bias . Bias can manifest on the part of the researcher as observer bias , Pygmalion effect , or demand characteristics . It can occur on the part of participants as a Hawthorne effect or social desirability bias .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

The 3 main types of primary research are:

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2024, January 12). Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/primary-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, observer bias | definition, examples, prevention, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

What is Primary Research and How do I get Started?

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Primary research is any type of research that you collect yourself. Examples include surveys, interviews, observations, and ethnographic research. A good researcher knows how to use both primary and secondary sources in their writing and to integrate them in a cohesive fashion.

Conducting primary research is a useful skill to acquire as it can greatly supplement your research in secondary sources, such as journals, magazines, or books. You can also use it as the focus of your writing project. Primary research is an excellent skill to learn as it can be useful in a variety of settings including business, personal, and academic.

But I’m not an expert!

With some careful planning, primary research can be done by anyone, even students new to writing at the university level. The information provided on this page will help you get started.

What types of projects or activities benefit from primary research?

When you are working on a local problem that may not have been addressed before and little research is there to back it up.

When you are working on writing about a specific group of people or a specific person.

When you are working on a topic that is relatively new or original and few publications exist on the subject.

You can also use primary research to confirm or dispute national results with local trends.

What types of primary research can be done?

Many types of primary research exist. This guide is designed to provide you with an overview of primary research that is often done in writing classes.

Interviews: Interviews are one-on-one or small group question and answer sessions. Interviews will provide a lot of information from a small number of people and are useful when you want to get an expert or knowledgeable opinion on a subject.

Surveys: Surveys are a form of questioning that is more rigid than interviews and that involve larger groups of people. Surveys will provide a limited amount of information from a large group of people and are useful when you want to learn what a larger population thinks.

Observations: Observations involve taking organized notes about occurrences in the world. Observations provide you insight about specific people, events, or locales and are useful when you want to learn more about an event without the biased viewpoint of an interview.

Analysis: Analysis involves collecting data and organizing it in some fashion based on criteria you develop. They are useful when you want to find some trend or pattern. A type of analysis would be to record commercials on three major television networks and analyze gender roles.

Where do I start?

Consider the following questions when beginning to think about conducting primary research:

• What do I want to discover?
• How do I plan on discovering it? (This is called your research methods or methodology)
• Who am I going to talk to/observe/survey? (These people are called your subjects or participants)
• How am I going to be able to gain access to these groups or individuals?
• What are my biases about this topic?
• How can I make sure my biases are not reflected in my research methods?
• What do I expect to discover?

Primary Research: Methods and Best Practices

Introduction

What is the definition of primary research, what are examples of primary research, primary vs. secondary research, types of primary research, when to use primary research.

Conducting research involves two types of data: primary data and secondary data . While secondary research deals with existing data, primary research collects new data . Ultimately, the most appropriate type of research depends on which method is best suited to your research question .

While this article discusses the difference between primary and secondary research, the main focus is on primary research, the types of data collected through primary research, and considerations for researchers who conduct primary research.

Simply put, researchers conduct primary research to gather new information. When existing data cannot address the research inquiry at hand, the researcher usually needs to collect new data to meet their research objectives.

How do you identify primary research?

Primary research uses collected data that hasn't been previously documented. Primary research typically means collecting data straight from the source (e.g., interviewing a research participant , observing a cultural practice or phenomenon firsthand).

Note that other divides that you should also consider include that of collecting quantitative or qualitative data , and of conducting basic or applied research . Each of these dimensions informs and is informed by your research inquiry.

What are the advantages of primary research?

New data, particularly that which addresses a research gap, can contribute to a novel inquiry and prove compelling to the research audience. When a researcher conducts a literature review and generates a problem statement for their research, they can identify what new data needs to be collected and what primary research method can be used to collect it.

Primary research studies ultimately contribute to theoretical developments and novel insights that an analysis of existing data might not have identified. Research publications in some fields may place a premium on primary research for its potential to generate new scientific knowledge as a result.

What are the disadvantages of primary research?

Primary research is time-consuming and potentially expensive to conduct, considering the equipment and resources needed to collect new data as well as the time required to engage with the field and collect data.

Moreover, primary research relies on new data that has yet to be documented elsewhere, meaning that the research audience is less familiar with the primary data being presented. This might raise issues of transparency and research rigor (e.g., how does the audience know that the data they are shown is trustworthy?).

Primary research is common in various fields of research. Let's look at some typical examples of primary research in three different areas.

Education research

Teaching and learning is a field that relies on evidence-based data to make policy recommendations affecting teachers, learning materials, and even classroom requirements. As a result, there are countless methods for collecting relevant data on the various aspects of education.

Observations , interviews , and assessments are just some of the primary research methods that are employed when studying education contexts. Education research acknowledges the full variety of situated differences found in the diversity of learners and their schooling contexts. This makes collecting data that is relevant to the given context and research inquiry crucial to understanding teaching and learning.

Market research

Businesses often rely on primary research to understand the target market for their products and services. Since competing businesses tend not to share research on customer insights with each other, primary research collecting original data can be a necessity.

Focus groups , surveys , and user research are typical research tools employed by businesses. Within market research, the goal is typically to understand customers' preferences and use cases for specific products and services.

Cultural studies

Fields such as anthropology and sociology count on primary research for understanding cultures and communities. Ethnographic research acknowledges that thick description of cultures and phenomena is more meaningful than only generating universal theories, making the collection of primary data essential to understanding the full diversity of the social world.

Researchers examining culture often collect data through interviews, observations, and photovoice, among other research methods. These methods look at the social world through the eyes of the research participants to generate an immersive view of cultures and groups with which audiences may not be familiar.

Insights from data are at your fingertips with ATLAS.ti

See how our powerful data analysis interface can help you make sense of data. Start with a free trial.

Primary research data stands in contrast to secondary research data, which is any data that has been previously collected and documented. In some situations, existing data may be abundant and available, making secondary research a more feasible approach to generating theory and identifying key insights.

Secondary research methods are employed in all fields of research. Market researchers conduct secondary research when there is already existing data about a target market. In particular, secondary market research might look at previous trends in the popularity of products to make predictions about the demand for new products.

Scholarly researchers can use secondary sources such as corpora, news articles, and online videos to make assertions about language and culture. Analytical approaches such as discourse analysis and content analysis can be well suited to analyzing data collected through secondary research methods.

Ultimately, primary and secondary research go hand in hand. The main function of research in building knowledge does not necessarily depend on the use of primary data collection . Rather, it is a matter of whether data needs to be collected in order to address your research inquiry, or relevant data already exists and you can access it.

There are many research methods used to collect data for primary research. The research method that works best for you depends on what you are looking to do with your research project.

This section lists some of the common primary data collection methods that researchers rely on.

One-on-one interviews are useful for capturing perspectives from research participants. Direct interactions can tell researchers what perspectives their research participants have and the thinking behind those perspectives.

Interview research is a complex and detailed methodology that includes several types of interviews to suit various research inquiries. Researchers can choose between structured interviews , semi-structured interviews , and unstructured interviews , depending on the nature of interaction they are looking to establish.

Focus groups

Focus groups are discussions that involve multiple research participants and are led by a moderator. Similar to interviews, the primary goal is to gather information about people's perspectives. Yet focus groups are distinct, because they can capture how people interact and build meaning when discussing a particular topic.

Market researchers may consider conducting a focus group discussion when they want to know more about how a particular group feels about a product or service. Researchers in linguistics and anthropology might be interested in observing how a group of people construct meaning with each other.

Observations

In research involving naturalistic inquiry and the social world, the researcher can gather information directly from the field through observational research methods . Primary data takes the form of field notes , audio and video recordings , their resulting transcripts , and even images of objects of interest.

For quantitative research inquiries, observation entails measuring the amount of activity or the frequency of particular phenomena. Qualitative observations look for patterns in cultural or social practices and document significant events in the field.

When the objective is to capture perspectives from large numbers of people, surveys are a good research method for collecting novel data. In-person questionnaires and online surveys can be used to quickly collect data at scale.

Surveys are used for conducting primary research in both quantitative and qualitative research . The structure of survey questions provide data that can be measured quantitatively, while open-ended survey responses require qualitative data analysis .

Experiments

While the above methods emphasize or are involved with naturalistic inquiry, experiments are a different form of primary research that is far more controlled. When you want to understand the relationship between various elements in a certain context (e.g., the effect of water and fertilizer on plant growth), a controlled experiment is a typical research approach to empirically establish scientific knowledge.

Experiments focus on a specific set of factors from the research phenomenon to understand causal relationships between variables. Experiments are a common primary research method in physical sciences, but they are also extensively used in psychology, education, and political science, among other areas.

The decision to conduct a primary or secondary study is a question of whether existing data is sufficient to satisfy the research inquiry at hand. Where data does not exist, primary research should be conducted.

Consider an example research study regarding ideal teaching methods in elementary school contexts in a developing country in Asia. Just because there is abundant data on the same topic in elementary schools in Western countries does not preclude the possibility of novel theoretical developments in schools in Asia. This becomes particularly important if insights based on existing data from other contexts may not be applicable to the present context.

Note that this does not mean that a secondary research study is any less novel than a primary study. Indeed, many fields and methodologies rely extensively on analyzing existing data. For example, studies that employ discourse analysis and content analysis typically (though not always) rely on existing sources of data to facilitate understanding of language use in real-world situations.

As a result, the choice between primary and secondary research can be seen as more of a practical consideration than a matter of a study's potential contribution to scientific knowledge. Novelty in research is as much about the data collection as it is about the resulting analysis. If you require data for your study where none exists, then data from primary research is your best option.

Powerful data analysis at your fingertips with ATLAS.ti

Download a free trial to start making the most of your qualitative data.

• Technical Support
• Technical Papers
• Knowledge Base
• Question Library

Call our friendly, no-pressure support team.

What is Primary Research? Definitions, Methods, Sources, Examples, and More

Table of Contents

What is Primary Research? Primary Research Meaning

Primary research is a cornerstone of insightful, accurate, and effective decision-making in both academic and professional settings. At its core, primary research refers to the process of collecting data directly from sources rather than relying on previously gathered information, distinguishing it clearly from secondary research . 

The process of directly controlling the collection of the data is pivotal for ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the analysis, enabling researchers to tailor their investigations to specific research questions or problems put to them by stakeholders. This direct involvement contrasts with primary vs secondary research , where the latter often involves analyzing existing data.

Primary research serves as a vital component when seeking answers to your business objectives, filling gaps in existing knowledge and providing new data for analysis. Particularly coming into play when solving research problems with a high degree of specificity and relevance. 

By leveraging primary research, professionals can uncover unique insights, highly specific to their intended target market, tailored to their industry and unique to their product of interest. This level of tailoring is simply not possible through the use of secondary research.

When to Use Primary Research

Selecting the appropriate research method is a critical decision that hinges on the objectives of the study. Primary research is particularly beneficial in scenarios where recent, specific data is required to address a unique problem or question. This method is ideal for:

Academic Research

In the realm of academic research, primary research is indispensable when fresh insights or novel data are necessary to advance knowledge or contribute to scholarly debates. This type of research is crucial for:

• Exploring New Theories or Models : When a researcher aims to develop or validate a new theory, firsthand data collection is essential. For instance, a psychologist conducting experiments to test a new cognitive behavioral therapy model for anxiety would rely on primary research to gather data on the therapy's effectiveness directly from participants.
• Filling Knowledge Gaps : Primary research helps fill gaps in existing literature. If a historian is studying a less-documented cultural practice, interviews and observational studies can provide new insights that no secondary sources could offer.
• Improving Research Rigor : Utilizing primary data enhances the rigor of academic studies. By collecting and analyzing original data, researchers can draw conclusions with greater validity, offering substantial contributions to their fields.

Market Research

Market research utilizes primary research extensively to understand consumer behaviors, preferences, and trends. This method is particularly advantageous for:

• Product Development : Before launching a new product, companies often use surveys and focus groups to gather consumer feedback on the product concept, design, and functionality. For example, a beverage company considering a new flavor profile might conduct taste tests and focus groups to refine the product based on direct consumer feedback.
• Customer Satisfaction : To assess and enhance customer satisfaction, businesses frequently employ primary research methods such as customer satisfaction surveys and in-depth interviews. This allows companies to receive real-time feedback and quickly implement changes to improve customer service.
• Segmentation and Targeting : Through interviews and surveys, companies can identify customer segments and understand their specific needs and preferences. This segmentation enables more effective targeting of marketing efforts and product customization.

Get Started with Market Research Today!

Ready for your next market research study? Get access to our free survey research tool. In just a few minutes, you can create powerful surveys with our easy-to-use interface.

Start Market Research for Free or Request a Product Tour

Policy Formulation

Primary research is critical in policy formulation, particularly when policies need to be based on up-to-date and specific data regarding public opinion, needs, and conditions. Primary research methods such as public opinion polls and field observations are commonly used:

• Understanding Public Needs : Governments and organizations use primary research to gauge public opinion on various issues, from healthcare to urban development. For instance, before implementing a new public transport policy, a city council might conduct surveys to understand residents' preferences and concerns regarding transit options.
• Evaluating Policy Impact : After a policy is implemented, primary research is used to evaluate its effectiveness. This could involve collecting data on user satisfaction, policy usage, and public perception through direct feedback mechanisms like online polls or public forums.
• Refining Policies : Continuous primary research is necessary to refine and adjust policies based on direct stakeholder feedback. This dynamic approach ensures that policies remain relevant and effective over time.

In each of these contexts, primary research not only provides the specificity needed for tailored insights but also offers the flexibility to adapt to emerging data and trends, thereby enhancing the overall impact and effectiveness of the research efforts.

Types of Primary Research Methods with Examples

Primary research methods are diverse, each tailored to fit specific study objectives and research environments. These methods enable researchers to gather fresh, firsthand data directly related to their study's focus.

Surveys are structured questionnaires designed to collect data from a target audience. They are used widely due to their versatility in capturing a broad spectrum of information, ranging from customer preferences to behavioral patterns. Surveys can be administered online, in person, or via phone, making them adaptable to various research needs. For instance, a company aiming to gauge customer satisfaction might deploy an online survey to understand the factors influencing their product's user experience. This method allows for quick data collection from a large audience, providing valuable insights into customer sentiment. The volume of respondent data collected via this method also enables analysis via a range of statistical methods, allowing us to understand if the answers we receive are robust, or if there are any hidden patterns which emerge from the data.

One to One Interviews

Interviews involve direct, one-on-one conversations where detailed information is solicited from participants. They are particularly useful for gathering qualitative data, offering deep insights into participants' attitudes, experiences, and emotions. Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured, giving researchers flexibility in their approach. Imagine a study exploring the impact of remote work on employee well-being. Conducting semi-structured interviews with employees would offer nuanced understandings of personal experiences, challenges faced, and the overall satisfaction with remote work arrangements. The depth of understanding and information gathered via this process is particularly useful when speaking to participants about difficult or challenging topics of conversation.

Focus Groups

Focus Groups are guided discussions with a small group of participants, typically used to explore new ideas or opinions about products, services, or concepts. This method is invaluable for generating rich, detailed data and for observing the dynamics of participants' interactions and consensus-forming processes. Consider a company developing a new smartphone app. Hosting a focus group session with potential users could unveil insights into user expectations, desired features, and usability concerns, directly influencing the app's development trajectory. Due to the small number of respondents involved in the groups, care must be taken to ensure that you are speaking to a representative sample of your intended audience.

Ethnographic Studies

Ethnographic Studies involve watching and recording the behavior of subjects in their natural environment without intervention. This method is critical for studies where interaction with the subject might alter the outcome. For example, a retailer interested in improving store layout might conduct an observational study to track customer navigation patterns, identifying areas of congestion or overlooked products. Ethnographic studies can uncover vital behaviours which respondents themselves may be unaware of, as researchers seek to identify the unconscious behaviors which may otherwise be hidden from other research methods.

Examples of Primary Sources in Research

Primary research data sources are the lifeblood of firsthand research, providing raw, unfiltered insights directly from the source. These include:

Customer Satisfaction Survey Results: Direct feedback from customers about their satisfaction with a product or service. This data is invaluable for identifying strengths to build on and areas for improvement and typically renews each month or quarter so that metrics can be tracked over time.

NPS Rating Scores from Customers: Net Promoter Score (NPS) provides a straightforward metric to gauge customer loyalty and satisfaction. This quantitative data can reveal much about customer sentiment and the likelihood of referrals.

Ad-hoc Surveys: Ad-hoc surveys can be about any topic which requires investigation, they are typically one-off surveys which zero in on one particular business objective. Ad-hoc projects are useful for situations such as investigating issues identified in other tracking surveys, new product development, ad testing, brand messaging, and many other kinds of projects.

A Field Researcher’s Notes: Detailed observations from fieldwork can offer nuanced insights into user behaviors, interactions, and environmental factors that influence those interactions. These notes are a goldmine for understanding the context and complexities of user experiences.

Recordings Made During Focus Groups: Audio or video recordings of focus group discussions capture the dynamics of conversation, including reactions, emotions, and the interplay of ideas. Analyzing these recordings can uncover nuanced consumer attitudes and perceptions that might not be evident in survey data alone.

Through these examples, it's clear that each primary research method and source serves a distinct purpose, providing unique insights that are crucial for informed decision-making and strategic planning in various contexts.

Marketing Research Consulting

Need help with your research study? Contact our expert consulting team for help with survey design, fielding, and interpreting survey results.

Contact Our Consulting Team

Advantages and Disadvantages of Primary Research

Primary research, characterized by its ability to gather firsthand information directly from the source, plays a crucial role in the landscape of research methodologies. Despite its invaluable contributions to the acquisition of new, tailored data, primary research comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Understanding these can help researchers and organizations make informed decisions when planning their research strategies.

Advantages of Primary Research

• Specificity and Relevance : Primary research allows for the collection of data specifically tailored to the research questions or objectives. This targeted approach ensures that the information gathered is highly relevant and directly applicable to the matter at hand, providing clear insights and facilitating informed decision-making.
• Control Over Data Quality : When conducting primary research, the researcher has complete control over the quality of data collected. This includes the design of the research method, the selection of participants, and the timing of data collection, all of which contribute to the reliability and validity of the research outcomes.
• Up-to-Date Information : One of the key strengths of primary research is its ability to produce the most current data possible. This is particularly important in fast-moving sectors where timely information can provide a competitive edge or in academic studies where recent data can lead to groundbreaking conclusions.
• Proprietary Information : The data collected through primary research is exclusive to the researcher or the commissioning organization. This proprietary nature of the data can offer a strategic advantage, especially in commercial contexts where unique insights can differentiate a company from its competitors.
• Flexibility : Primary research methods are highly flexible, allowing researchers to adjust their approach based on preliminary findings or to explore unexpected avenues. This adaptability can lead to more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of the research topic.

Disadvantages of Primary Research

• Cost : Conducting primary research is often expensive due to the costs associated with designing and implementing the study, recruiting participants, and collecting and analyzing data. These expenses can be prohibitive for some organizations or individual researchers.
• Time : Primary research can be time-consuming, from the initial planning stages through to data collection and data analysis . This extended timeline may not be suitable for projects with tight deadlines or where quick decisions are needed.
• Complexity : Designing and conducting primary research requires a certain level of expertise to ensure that the data collected is valid, reliable, and relevant. This complexity can pose challenges, particularly for those without extensive research experience.
• Sample Size and Representativeness : Achieving a sample size that is both large enough to be statistically significant and representative of the broader population can be challenging. Missteps in this area can lead to skewed data and potentially unreliable conclusions.
• Bias : Despite efforts to minimize bias in research design and implementation, primary research is vulnerable to biases introduced by the researcher, participants, or the research context itself. These biases can affect the objectivity and accuracy of the findings.

In conclusion, primary research is a valuable part of any researcher's toolkit, offering detailed, specific insights that are directly relevant to the research question. However, the decision to undertake primary research should be weighed against the potential costs, time requirements, and complexities involved.

Free Survey Maker Tool

Get access to our free and intuitive survey maker. In just a few minutes, you can create powerful surveys with its easy-to-use interface.

Try our Free Survey Maker or Request a Product Tour

Sawtooth Software

3210 N Canyon Rd Ste 202

Provo UT 84604-6508

United States of America

Support: [email protected]

Consulting: [email protected]

Sales: [email protected]

Products & Services

Support & Resources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Glob Health
• v.7(5); 2022

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Racha fadlallah.

1 Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

2 Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

3 Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Najla Daher

Amena el-harakeh.

4 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Rima Hammam

Hneine brax.

5 Faculty of Medicine, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon

Lama Bou Karroum

Luciane cruz lopes.

6 University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil

Ghida Arnous

Inas kassamany, stephanie baltayan, tamara lotfi, fadi el-jardali.

7 Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Associated Data

bmjgh-2021-007465supp001.pdf

bmjgh-2021-007465supp002.pdf

bmjgh-2021-007465supp003.pdf

bmjgh-2021-007465supp004.pdf

bmjgh-2021-007465supp005.pdf

bmjgh-2021-007465supp006.pdf

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Key questions

What is already known.

• Although there is a growing number of reports on approaches to primary health research prioritisation, we are not aware of any systematic synthesis of that body of evidence irrespective of research topic, geographical or institutional setting.

What are the new findings?

• We created a common framework of prioritisation criteria and stakeholder types that respectively captured all criteria and stakeholders mentioned in each of the 25 identified approaches.
• Less than half of the identified approaches proposed involving potential users (eg, policy-makers, government and the general public) or incorporated equity-related criteria as part of the prioritisation process.

What do the new findings imply?

• We provide specific suggestions for which approaches to consider when emphasis is on patients and public engagement, equity, a specific field of research, or the availability of time and resources.

Introduction

Health research can strengthen health systems, accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals and improve population health. 1–4 The past few years have witnessed increased global calls to make better use of health research in policy-making and practice. 5–7

The global COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the importance of appropriately identifying the health issues that must be prioritised for research. 8–11 Hydroxychloroquine represents a notorious example of inappropriate research investment and duplication of efforts. While initially haled as a miracle drug for treating patients with COVID-19, the ensuing research showed that this drug is ineffective and potentially harmful. 12 13 In spite of that fact, numerous primary studies continued to be conducted on the effectiveness and safety of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients. 14–16

The large number of competing topics for health research is coupled with limited available resources. Therefore, prioritisation processes are increasingly recognised as essential for the optimal allocation of resources to areas of greatest need and impact, especially in resource-poor environments. 17–20 In particular, priority setting can maximise the likelihood that potentially impactful research is funded, 21 and that research outputs reflect the needs of a broad range of stakeholders. 22 23 It could also ensure more efficient and equitable use of limited resources and less duplication of research efforts. 24–26 This aligns with global efforts to reduce research waste and avoid duplication of research efforts. 27

A systematic and transparent prioritisation approach to assist decision-makers and research funding agencies in making investment decisions is critical. 28 Although there is a growing number of reports on approaches to primary health research prioritisation, we are not aware of any comprehensive synthesis of that body of evidence; previous systematic reviews on prioritisation for primary research did not specifically explore the approaches used, and were restricted to geographic areas such as selected high-income countries 23 or selected low-income and middle-income countries. 24 More recent reviews examined approaches and exercises conducted to prioritise topics or questions specifically for systematic reviews 29 or practice guidelines. 30 31

Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area, irrespective of geographical or institutional setting. Findings will enable a better understanding of the landscape of approaches used to prioritise primary health research.

We conducted a scoping review on approaches to prioritise primary research topics in health related areas, addressing the following broad areas: steps of the development process of the prioritisation approaches; aspects proposed to be addressed in the prioritisation process; methods for generation of initial list of topics; prioritisation criteria and stakeholder involvement.

We opted for a scoping review, which is typically used to present ‘a broad overview of the evidence pertaining to a topic, irrespective of study quality, to examine areas that are emerging, to clarify key concepts and to identify gaps’. 32 Scoping reviews are an ideal tool to convey the breadth and depth of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview of its focus. 33 In contrast to a systematic review, it ‘is less likely to seek to address very specific research questions nor, consequently, to assess the quality of the included studies’. 34

We followed standard methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines for reporting scoping reviews 35 ( online supplemental file 1 ). This study is based on a protocol available in online supplemental file 2 .

Supplementary data

Eligibility criteria.

• Type of study: We included all types of study designs except for commentaries, news, editorials, correspondences, letters to editors, viewpoints, abstracts and reviews. While we excluded reviews, we planned to assess for eligibility the studies that they included.
• We considered ‘approach’ as an umbrella term for frameworks, checklists, models, and methods used to set health research priorities. The description of the approach should have been detailed enough to allow for reproducibility, practically using at least one section dedicated to that description. We excluded studies describing the output of a prioritisation exercise (ie, the priorities) without describing the approach. We excluded studies describing individual prioritisation items or criteria (eg, burden of disease and cost) but not describing a prioritisation approach or model. Additionally, we excluded studies that looked at ranking techniques (such as Delphi and nominal group techniques) in isolation of a broader prioritisation approach.
• Health-related areas included clinical, public health, health service and/or health systems and policy research. We did not limit the review to any specific health topic. We excluded animal studies and studies on genetics.
• We considered primary research as quantitative or qualitative research that requires the researcher to engage directly in primary data-gathering process as opposed to depending on already existing data (ie, secondary research). We excluded priority setting approaches focusing on healthcare or service delivery priorities (ie, not specific to research).
• Setting: We did not limit study eligibility to any geographical setting (eg, low-income, middle-income or high-income countries) or prioritisation level (institutional, subnational, national, regional or international).

Search strategy

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases up until January 2021. We developed the search strategy with the help of an information specialist. The search combined various terms for health prioritisation and included both medical subject headings and free-text words. We did not restrict the search to any dates or languages. The detailed search strategy is provided in online supplemental file 3 . We also manually searched Google Scholar as well as screened the reference lists of included studies and other relevant reviews to retrieve additional studies.

Study selection

We completed the selection process in two stages:

• Title and abstract screening: Three teams of two reviewers used the above eligibility criteria to screen titles and abstracts of identified citations in duplicate and independently for potential eligibility. They obtained the full texts for citations judged as potentially eligible by at least one of the two reviewers.
• Full-text screening: The same three teams of two reviewers screened the full texts in duplicate and independently for eligibility. They resolved disagreement by discussion or with the help of a third reviewer when consensus could not be reached. They used a standardised and pilot-tested screening form.

Prior to proceeding with the selection process, we conducted two rounds of calibration exercises using a randomly selected sample of 100 citations for the first round, and a random sample of 50 citations for the second round. The calibration exercise allowed us to pilot the eligibility criteria to ensure they are applied in the same way across reviewers, thus enhancing the validity of the selection process.

Data abstraction

Two teams of two reviewers abstracted data from eligible studies in duplicate and independently using a standardised and pilot-tested data abstraction form. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when needed, with the help of a third reviewer. We conducted a calibration exercise on a random sample of three studies to ensure the data abstraction variables are clear and interpreted in the same way across reviewers, thus enhancing the validity of the data abstraction process.

We abstracted the following information from each included approach:

• General characteristics: authors; location; year of publication; name of the approach; lead entity; target audience; field (eg, clinical, public health or health systems); level of prioritisation (institutional, subnational, national, international); funding agency; output of prioritisation and type of publication.
• Steps of the development process of the prioritisation approaches, we used the abstracted data to create a common categorisation of the steps used in the development process (eg, use of a pre-existing framework/approach; literature review; consensus building; stakeholder input; pilot-testing). We collected this information as it reflects the thoroughness of the development process.
• Aspects proposed to be addressed in the prioritisation process; we used the abstracted data to create a common categorisation of the aspects proposed by the approaches (eg, situation analysis/environmental scan; methods for generating initial list of research topics; use of prioritisation criteria; stakeholder engagement (types of stakeholders proposed to be involved and the role of the different proposed stakeholders); ranking process/technique; dissemination and implementation; revision or appeal mechanism; and monitoring and evaluation). We collected this information as it reflects the breadth of the aspects of prioritisation covered by the approach.

We did not conduct a formal assessment of the risk of bias within or across studies given the descriptive nature of the included studies Furthermore, we are not aware of, and could not identify tools to critically appraise the types of studies retrieved.

Data synthesis

Given the nature of data, we synthesised the findings in a semiquantitative way. We used the abstracted data to come up with common categorisations of relevant concepts (eg, steps of the development process of the approach, aspects proposed to be addressed in the prioritisation process, prioritisation criteria, type and level of stakeholder involvement, methods for generation of initial list of topics), using an iterative process of review and refinement. As part of this process, the content of each study was analysed at least twice; once when drafting the initial categories, and after producing an advanced draft. Throughout this process, team members with subject expertise were consulted to validate categorisation decisions and discuss emerging concepts. We reported the results in both narrative and tabular formats.

The concepts we addressed in our analysis were the following (with the analytical approach that we followed included in brackets):

• Steps of the development process of the prioritisation approaches (content analysis).
• Aspects proposed to be addressed in the prioritisation process(content analysis).
• Methods for generation of initial list of topics (descriptive analysis).
• Prioritisation criteria: we used as an initial list of criteria derived from a framework of prioritisation criteria for evidence synthesis topics. 29 Two reviewers (RF and ND) independently matched the criteria reported in the included studies to the initial list of criteria derived from the framework. The criteria for which consensus could not be reached were independently reviewed and validated by a third reviewer (AE-H). We subsequently revised the list of criteria to capture those not already captured and drop those that may not apply. Multiple meetings were held to finalise the list of prioritisation domains and criteria.
• Stakeholder involvement: we adopted the categories we developed for a recent systematic review on prioritisation for evidence synthesis 29 which is based on the 7Ps framework 36 as a starting point. We subsequently revised the list of categories to capture those not already captured; for stakeholder roles, we applied content analysis; one reviewer (AE-H) generated an initial list of stakeholder roles from the included studies (based on the data on stakeholder roles abstracted independently by two reviewers). Another researcher (RF) verified the resulting list to improve its clarity and relevance. The two reviewers then met to finalise the list of stakeholder roles through discussion and consensus.

We concluded the results section with a subsection on considerations relevant to selecting an approach.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in the design and conduct of this scoping review. However, findings have implications for patient and public involvement in the prioritisation of topics for primary health research.

Figure 1 shows the study flow diagram which summarises the selection process. Out of the 44 392 citations identified, we included 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches, with each of 2 approaches reported in 2 articles 37–40 and 1 approach reported in 3 articles. 41–43 The articles were published between 1997 and 2020 inclusive. Seven of the included articles were obtained from the reference list/bibliography. 37 44–49 We excluded 1623 articles at the full-text screening phase for the following reasons: not study design of interest (n=135); focus is not on a prioritisation approach or tool (n=1043); focus is not on research (n=432); and focus is not on public health, health service, health systems or clinical fields (n=13) (see online supplemental file 4 for reasons for exclusion).

Study selection process.

General characteristics of the prioritisation approaches

Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the 25 identified approaches (see online supplemental file 5 for detailed overview and description of each approach). The majority of the approaches originated from high-income countries, with government as the main funding source (n=10, 40%). Eighteen of the 25 (or 72%) approaches were published in peer reviewed articles. The included approaches addressed the following fields: health in general (n=9, 36%); clinical (n=10, 40%), health policy and systems (n=10, 40%); public health (n=6, 24%) and health service research (n=5, 20%); Ten of the approaches addressed more than one field. The approaches are applicable to the following levels of prioritisation: national (n=20, 80%) international (n=7, 28%), institutional (n=7, 28%), regional (n=5, 20%) and subnational (n=7, 28%); ten of the approaches addressed more than one level of prioritisation. As for prioritisation outputs, these included research topics (n=10, 40%), specific research questions (n=6, 24%), or research themes (n=1, 4%); in nine of the approaches, the output was not specific. Seventeen of the approaches proposed ranking the priorities and the remaining eight proposed listing them (without ranking). Only one approach (reported by three papers) also proposed prioritising outcomes for the priority research questions. 41–43 Seven of the approaches had an explicit focus on promoting patient participation, 45 46 50–54 and three (reported by four papers) incorporated an equity dimension to health research priority setting. 38 49 55 56

General characteristics of the 25 included approaches

*More than one study reporting on the same approach.

†Percentages add up to more than 100% as more than one option applies.

Development process of the prioritisation approaches

Table 2 provides a description of the steps followed for the development process of the different prioritisation approaches. In three approaches (reported by four papers), the development process was not described. 39 40 57 58 We categorised the steps as follows: use of a pre-existing approach, literature review, consensus building, stakeholder input and pilot-testing. The most frequently reported steps used in the development process were reviewing the literature (n=14, 64%) and building on a pre-existing approach (n=14, 64%). Eleven (or 50%) of the approaches were pilot-tested.

Steps of the development of the prioritisation approaches (N=22)

*The denominator reflects the total number of approaches that described the steps of the development of the approach.

†The tool has now been further refined into a Three-Dimensional Combined Approach Matrix which is described in this document.

Eight of the approaches (reported by nine studies) 38 50 59–64 covered more than half of the steps identified in the development process, with one following all of the steps in the development process. 59

Aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process

Table 3 shows the aspects to be addressed when prioritising primary research topics, as proposed by the different approaches. The vast majority of approaches (n=23, 92%) included the involvement of stakeholders as one aspect of prioritisation. Most approaches also proposed the following as key aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: methods for generation of initial list of topics (n=19, 76%), use of prioritisation criteria (n=18, 72%), description of ranking process/technique (n=18; 72%) and dissemination & implementation of prioritisation outputs (n=16, 64%). Less than half of the approaches proposed monitoring and evaluation (n=10; 40%).

Aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process, as proposed by the approaches (N=25)

*In this approach, ‘ importance’ and ‘feasibility’ were proposed as prioritisation criteria, but authors only considered the score for ‘importance’ when generating the top priorities.

†These approaches indicated the use of prioritisation criteria but did not propose criteria.

Five approaches (reported by six papers) covered all aspects of prioritisation, and were, thus, considered the most comprehensive and detailed. 39 40 45 52 62 63

Methods proposed for generating initial list of topics

Nineteen approaches proposed methods for generating an initial list of topics for subsequent prioritisation (see table 4 ). The most frequently used method was seeking input from stakeholders (n=16, 84%) followed by reviewing the literature (n=9, 47%) and assessing research gaps from existing systematic reviews (n=7, 37%). The majority of approaches (n=15, 79%) used more than one method to generate initial list of topics. Four approaches relied on stakeholder inputs alone to generate initial list of topics. 37 52 54 55

Methods proposed for generating initial list of topics (N=19)

*Percentages add up to more than 100% as more than one option applies.

†Initial topics were generated from existing systematic reviews and guidelines.

Prioritisation criteria

Fifteen of the 25 identified approaches (60%) proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. There was a total of 135 mentions of criteria across the approaches (range: 3–28). In some of the approaches, there was flexibility in terms of using the prioritisation criteria, that is, criteria were presented as a menu option to select from depending on context. In four approaches (reported by five papers), the proposed criteria constituted different steps of a process or model for prioritisation. 23 38 44 58 Three approaches gave weight to the criteria, 37 59 63 while two approaches (reported by three papers) proposed weighting of criteria as optional. 39 40 62 The remaining approaches did not suggest weighting the criteria. Three approaches proposed that the criteria need to be applied by research experts. 37 46 58

We attempted to match the 135 criteria to a published framework of 25 prioritisation criteria classified into 10 domains ( online supplemental file 6 ). In the process, we merged the two domains ‘existing systematic reviews’ and ‘existing primary studies’ into a single domain ‘existing research base’, and revised the criteria accordingly, in alignment with the included studies for this review. Table 5 shows the classification of the identified 28 prioritisation criteria according to the new framework, clustered in nine domains: (1) problem-related considerations; (2) practice considerations; (3) existing research base; (4) amenability to research; (5) urgency; (6) interest of the topic at different levels; (7) implementation considerations; (8) expected impact of applying evidence and (9) ethical, human rights and moral considerations. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%), and ‘economic outcomes’ (n=10, 67%). Only one approach (reported by two papers) incorporated more than half of the 28 criteria listed in the framework. 39 40

Framework for prioritisation domains and criteria (N=15)

*The denominator reflects the total number of approaches that proposed specific criteria to be used as part of the priority setting.

†This approach listed some examples of criteria considered by Steering Groups to help reduce a list of indicative questions to a more manageable size for ‘interim’ prioritisation by external stakeholders.

‡Criteria were used by research experts to translate priority issues identified by stakeholders during consultations into priority research themes.

§While two criteria were proposed ‘importance’ and ‘feasibility’, authors only considered the score for ‘importance’ when generating the top priorities.

¶This encompasses cost-effectiveness of interventions.

The remaining approaches that did not propose using criteria relied on a variety of processes to rank priorities (eg, Delphi technique, nominal group techniques, ranking using a 10-point scale, simple voting), the most common being the Delphi technique. 41–43 50 One approach presented a range of ranking techniques, including comparison in pairs; anchored rating scale; Hanlon method and Essential National Health Research (ENHR) method. 47 Another approach highlighted several different methods to decide on priorities that broadly fall into two groups: consensus based approaches and metrics based approaches. 62

Stakeholder involvement

All but three approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process 44 47 58 ( table 6 ). The stakeholder category most frequently proposed for involvement was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17; 77%), followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). While slightly more than half of the approaches proposed involving ‘patients and their representatives’ (n=13, 59%), less than half proposed involving ‘members of the public’ (n=9, 41%), ‘caregivers’ (n=7, 32%), ‘NGOs and adovacy groups’ (n=8; 36%) or ‘government/policy-makers’ (n=10; 45%) in the prioritisation process.

Types of stakeholders proposed to be involved in prioritising primary research topics (N=22)

*The denominator reflects the total number of approaches that proposed stakeholder involvement as part of the priority setting.

†Includes professional associations.

We identified nine distinct roles for stakeholder involvement in the priority setting process ( table 7 ): executive committee/coordination; theme identification phase; establishment of initial list of topics/questions; refinement of topics/questions; prioritisation/ranking of topics/questions; selection of prioritisation criteria and weighting method; validation of prioritisation outputs; dissemination and process evaluation. Across the different stakeholder categories, the most commonly mentioned role was prioritisation/ranking of topics/questions followed by establishment of initial list of topics/questions and theme identification.

The roles for the different types of stakeholders proposed to be involved in prioritising primary research topics (N=25)

Eleven approaches described stakeholder recruitment methods, and these ranged from announcement in journal and newspapers, on website, by letter and distribution of brochures; to use of emails and established contacts; mapping stakeholders; checklist for identification of stakeholders; and organisational and personal contacts. 37 45 47 50 51 63 Additional methods to recruit representatives of patients and the general public included social media (Twitter, Facebook), radio ads and leveraging existing community-based partnerships. Stakeholders were engaged both via online platforms (eg, online surveys, email discussions, teleconference) and in-person (eg, workshops, smaller meetings) in eleven approaches (reported by 14 papers). 37 39–43 45 51–53 61 63–65

Considerations relevant to selecting an approach

Below, we provide considerations relevant to selecting a prioritisation approach when the emphasis is on one of the following: patients and public engagement, equity, a specific field of research, or the availability of time and resources.

Groups seeking to engage patients and the public in prioritisation would benefit from adopting one of the following seven approaches that have highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities 45 46 50–54 : the James Lind Alliance (JLA) method (UK), Listening Model (England and Canada), Dialogue Model (Netherlands), The PRioritiEs For Research project informed by the Dialogue model (Canada), Rare Disease Research Partnership approach (Ireland), storytelling approach to identify patient-centred research priorities (USA) and the Approach informed by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute framework (USA).

Priority setting exercises that value the principles of equity should consider one of three approaches (reported by four papers) that explicitly incorporate an equity dimension to health research priority setting. 48 49 55 56 The deep inclusion model developed by Pratt et al has been developed for use where research priority-setting is conducted in the context of power inequalities. 55 In the three-dimensional (3D) Combined Approach Matrix, the equity dimension facilitates comparison of different social groups in relation to particular health-related or health systems-related problems, ultimately resulting in informed policy decisions that are aimed at improving not only the average level of health, but also its distribution and hence, equity. Social groups can be defined on the basis of gender, income level, race or ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, depending on the context. 48 The Research Priorities of Affected Communities protocol is designed to elicit research questions and achieve consensus on priority research topics directly from members of members of under-represented communities that bear the burden of health disparities related to the health condition of interest. The method is based on a pedagogical framework of Research Justice that seeks to equalise the political power and legitimacy of knowledge generation. 49 56

Additionally, the particular field of research should be considered when selecting the priority setting approach to use. While many of the existing approaches (9 approaches reported by 11 papers) address health in general, 38–40 47 48 50 57 61–63 66 others are applicable to more specific fields: clinical (10 approaches reported by 12 papers), 41 43–45 49 51 53 54 56 59 60 65 67 health systems and policy (10 approaches reported by 11 papers), 37 44 49 51–56 60 65 public health (6 approaches reported by 7 papers) 37 49 53 54 56 58 65 and health service research (5 approaches reported by 6 papers). 46 49 56 58 59 64 For instance, the disability-adjusted life-year-based amended model adopts a clinical lens to define research priorities, which excludes a health systems perspective. 44 Similarly, the JLA method has a narrow focus on clinical settings and is overly biased to treatment needs, as opposed to system needs. 45 On the other hand, the Seven ‘I’s model does not explicitly encompass a specific disease or injury component as a criterion for priority setting as doing so would focus attention on the ‘wrong end of the health outcomes and risk factor spectrum’; the model encourages the link to population health gains. 58

In terms of time and resource constraints, multicomponent approaches have been found to be resource intensive, requiring the involvement and coordination of many participants across multiple stages. This has been described for the 3D Combined Approach Matrix, 48 the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative 37 and the eight-step process for identifying and prioritising clinically important research needs. 41 43 67 In contrast, the developers of the CAHTA method describe it as a relatively agile, low-cost, participatory process that allows for priority-setting over a wide range of topics. 59

We systematically reviewed the literature on prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches. The majority of approaches addressed clinical and health policy and systems research topics, were applicable at the national-level, were published by independent researchers and targeted a broad range of stakeholders. 38 45 46 50 51 55 None of the included studies reflected on the additional applicability of the identified approaches to other types of health research (eg, evidence synthesis).

There were variabilities in the steps adopted to develop the approaches and the aspects proposed to be addressed in the prioritisation process. Eight approaches (reported by nine papers) 38 50 59–64 covered more than half of the steps identified in the development process. Five approaches (reported by six papers) 39 40 45 52 62 63 covered all aspects of the prioritisation process (and are, thus, considered the most comprehensive and detailed), namely: situation analysis/environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision or appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholder involvement and the use of prioritisation criteria represented key aspects of most of the prioritisation approaches.

There was also wide variation across approaches in the prioritisation criteria. To address this, we synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts. This resulted in a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered in 9 domains. Equity was an infrequent dimension of the priority setting, as reflected by the low number of studies incorporating equity-related prioritisation criteria.

We also developed a common categorisation of 13 stakeholder types and nine distinct stakeholder roles in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder type was researchers/academia followed by healthcare providers, and the most commonly mentioned stakeholder role was prioritisation/ranking of topics/questions.

Despite increased calls for involving research users in the priority setting process, less than half of the approaches involved governments and policy-makers. Engaging governments and policy-makers in research priority-setting exercises can enhance alignment of research production to policy priorities and needs, which in turn, can increase the relevance and likelihood of utilisation of research to inform decisions. 19 68 While slightly more than half of the approaches proposed involving patients and their representatives, less than half proposed involving members of the public, caregivers or NGOs and advoacy groups in the prioritisation process. The rising trend in patient involvement may reflect the growing number of patient-centred approaches, particularly within the most recent years. Patient and public participation in priority setting makes research tangible, relevant and valuable for patients and their relatives, enhances the legitimacy and fairness of decision making, 69 improves trust and confidence in the health system 70 and strengthens the quality of decision making. 71 72 Without such engagement from the earliest stages, researchers and healthcare providers may ultimately miss the priority needs of the end users. While the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders can increase the legitimacy, transparency and acceptability of the identified priorities, it also raises challenges in terms of capacity, coordination, communication and resources. 63 73 Unfortunately, none of the identified approaches examined these issues in-depth.

Although the global COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the importance of health research prioritisation, none of the identified approaches focused on identifying research topics or questions in the context of emergencies or public health crisis. Existing priority setting related to COVID-19 pandemic focused largely on prioritisation of patients or healthcare interventions (eg, medications) as opposed to research topics or questions. A recent study on informing Canada’s health system response to COVID-19 conducted a rapid-cycle priority identification process to identify seven COVID-19 priorities for health services and policy research. However, no sufficient details were reported on the methodology applied to generate the priorities. 74

To our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively review approaches for prioritising primary research topics in any health-related area, irrespective of geographical or institutional setting. Previous reviews have mainly focused on specific geographic settings 23 24 or specific research types. 29 In line with our findings, these reviews reported variabilities in priority setting methodologies with inconsistent application of methods and outcomes generated. On the other hand, our findings provide a comprehensive description of approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area, with a more in-depth analysis of relevant characteristics such as the steps, criteria and stakeholders for prioritisation, which enables a better understanding of the landscape of approaches used to prioritise primary health research.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of our methodology include applying a rigorous and transparent process, following standard methods for reporting scoping reviews and including different types of study designs and settings. We also followed an iterative process of review and refinement to create a common framework of prioritisation criteria and stakeholders that respectively captured all criteria and stakeholders mentioned in each of the 25 identified approaches. This denotes progress toward standardising the terminology for prioritisation and enhancing the clarity of criteria for decision making.

Despite our attempt to identify all priority setting approaches for primary health research topics, we could have missed on potentially relevant information, particularly those in specialised data sources (eg, organisational websites). Our review did not seek published data on the implementation of the identified approaches. Additionally, no assessment of risk of bias was conducted given no tool is available for this type of studies; however, this is consistent with the scoping review methodology. 35

Implications for practice and policy

The findings of this scoping review can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers, funders and other stakeholders in the field of health research. Those involved should select the approach that best fits their needs, taking into consideration the purpose of priority setting as well as available resources and time constraints. For example, groups can consider our list of prioritisation criteria as a menu of options to select from, as deemed appropriate to the context, with considerations to incorporate equity-related criteria. Efforts should also be invested to ensure greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers, government and the general public) as part of the prioritisation process.

Application of the approaches can help support evidence-informed policy-making by aligning research production to policy priorities and needs. They can also help avoid research waste by directing limited resources to areas of highest priority and impact (eg, several of the identified approaches proposed the assessment of research gaps from systematic reviews and subsequent use of such information to generate initial list of primary research topics for prioritisation in order to avoid duplication of work). This is especially relevant in the context of low-income and middle-income countries where resources are already scarce and capacity for research production is limited and often misaligned with policy priorities and needs.

Implications for research

Further rigorous research is needed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness and transparency of several of the identified approaches. This kind of research would allow a better understanding of the potential barriers and facilitators to prioritisation using the existing approaches. It is also essential to evaluate the impact of those approaches on research agenda setting and broader health outcomes. Future work should use the findings of this review as well those of similar reviews addressing other types of health research (eg, evidence synthesis and guideline development) as the building blocks to produce an overarching approach to prioritising topics across the health research spectrum. The ultimate goal should be to inform the decision making of different stakeholders, including government, organisations, professionals and citizens.

Additionally, given the majority of the approaches were developed by researchers from high-income countries, future research can assess the applicability of the approaches in middle-income and low-income countries. Similar research is needed on the applicability and adaptability of the identified approaches beyond the health sector. For example, there is growing interest in approaches to prioritise research topics during pandemics where resources, infrastructure and government capacity to respond are particularly constrained. 8–11 The applicability of the identified approaches in the context of emergencies and crises warrants further exploration.

More rigorous research is also needed to assess effective ways of involving stakeholders in different aspects of prioritisation with a focus on promoting greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers, government and the general public) including better reporting of operational details of stakeholder engagement. Findings also highlight the need for more research on how to promote equity in priority-setting.

More generally, and given the variability in the identified prioritisation approaches, there is a need for guidance for developing priority-setting approaches and reporting their findings.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Ms. Aida Farha for her help in developing and validating the search strategy.

Handling editor: Stephanie M Topp

Contributors: EAA and RF conceived and designed the study. FE-J contributed to the conceptualisation of the study. RF coordinated the study throughout. RF, EAA, AE-H and TL ran the search. RF, ND, AE-H, RH, HB, LBK, LCL, GA, IK, SB, AY and TL conducted the study selection processes (title and abstract screening followed by full text screening). RF, ND, AE-H. RH, HB extracted the data. RF, ND, AE-H and EAA. analysed and interpreted the data. RF wrote the first draft of the manuscript with EAA. ND contributed to writing of the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version. EAA will act as guarantor.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Data availability statement

Ethics statements, patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Main Navigation Menu

Peer-review and primary research.

• Getting Started With Peer-Reviewed Literature

Primary Research

Identifying a primary research article.

• Finding Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
• Finding Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
• Evaluating Scholarly Articles
• Google Scholar
• Tips for Reading Journal Articles

STEM Librarian

Primary research or a primary study refers to a research article that is an author’s original research that is almost always published in a peer-reviewed journal. A primary study reports on the details, methods and results of a research study. These articles often have a standard structure of a format called IMRAD, referring to sections of an article: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Primary research studies will start with a review of the previous literature, however, the rest of the article will focus on the authors’ original research. Literature reviews can be published in peer-reviewed journals, however, they are not primary research.

Primary studies are part of primary sources but should not be mistaken for primary documents. Primary documents are usually original sources such as a letter, a diary, a speech or an autobiography. They are a first person view of an event or a period. Typically, if you are a Humanities major, you will be asked to find primary documents for your paper however, if you are in Social Sciences or the Sciences you are most likely going to be asked to find primary research studies. If you are unsure, ask your professor or a librarian for help.

A primary research or study is an empirical research that is published in peer-reviewed journals. Some ways of recognizing whether an article is a primary research article when searching a database:

1. The abstract includes a research question or a hypothesis,  methods and results.

2. Studies can have tables and charts representing data findings.

3. The article includes a section for "methods” or “methodology” and "results".

4. Discussion section indicates findings and discusses limitations of the research study, and suggests further research.

5. Check the reference section because it will refer you to the studies and works that were consulted. You can use this section to find other studies on that particular topic.

The following are not to be confused with primary research articles:

- Literature reviews

- Meta-analyses or systematic reviews (these studies make conclusions based on research on many other studies)

• << Previous: Getting Started With Peer-Reviewed Literature
• Next: Finding Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles >>
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 2:45 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucmo.edu/peerreview

Understanding research and critical appraisal

• Introduction
• Secondary research

What is primary research?

Quantitative research study designs, qualitative research study designs, mixed methods research study designs.

• Critical appraisal of research papers
• Useful terminology
• Further reading and helpful resources

Primary research articles provide a report of individual, original research studies, which constitute the majority of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. All primary research studies are conducted according to a specified methodology, which will be partly determined by the aims and objectives of the research.

The following sections offer brief summaries of some of the common quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study designs you may encounter. 

Randomised Controlled Trial

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) is a study where participants are randomly allocated to two or more groups. One group receives the treatment that is being tested by the study (treatment or experimental group), and the other group(s) receive an alternative, which is often the current standard treatment or a placebo (control or comparison group). The nature of the control used should always be specified.

An RCT is a good study choice for determining the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment, or for comparing the relative effectiveness of different interventions or treatments. If well implemented, the randomisation of participants in RCTs should ensure that the groups differ only in their exposure to treatment, and that differences in outcomes between the groups are probably attributable to the treatment being studied.

In crossover randomised controlled trials, participants receive all of the treatments and controls being tested in a random order. This means that participants receive one treatment, the effect of which is measured, and then "cross over" into the other treatment group, where the effect of the second treatment (or control) is measured.

RCTs are generally considered to be the most rigorous experimental study design, as the randomisation of participants helps to minimise confounding and other sources of bias.

Cohort study

A cohort study identifies a group of people and follows them over a period of time to see who develops the outcome of interest to the study. This type of study is normally used to look at the effect of suspected risk factors that cannot be controlled experimentally – for example, the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

Also sometimes called longitudinal studies, cohort studies can be either prospective, that is, exposure factors are identified at the beginning of a study and the study population is followed into the future, or retrospective, that is, medical records for the study population are used to identify past exposure factors.

Cohort studies are useful in answering questions about disease causation or progression, or studying the effects of harmful exposures.

Cohort studies are generally considered to be the most reliable observational study design. They are not as reliable as RCTs, as the study groups may differ in ways other than the variable being studied.

Other problems with cohort studies are that they require a large sample size, are inefficient for rare outcomes, and can take long periods of time.

Case-Control Study

A case-control study compares a group of people with a disease or condition, against a control population without the disease or condition, in order to investigate the causes of particular outcomes. The study looks back at the two groups over time to see which risk factors for the disease or condition they have been exposed to.

Case-control studies can be useful in identifying which risk factors may predict a disease, or how a disease progresses over time. They can be especially useful for investigating the causes of rare outcomes.

Case-control studies can be done quickly, and do not require large groups of subjects. However, their reliance on retrospective data which may be incomplete or unreliable (owing to subject ability to accurately recall information such as the appearance of a symptom) can be a difficulty.

Cross-Sectional Study

A cross-sectional study collects data from the study population at one point in time, and considers the relationships between characteristics. Also  sometimes called surveys or prevalence studies.

Cross-sectional studies are generally used to study the prevalence of a risk factor, disease or outcome in a chosen population.

Because cross-sectional studies do not look at trends or changes over time, they cannot establish cause and effect between exposures and outcomes.

Case Series / Case Reports

A case series is a descriptive study of a group of people, who have either received the same treatment or have the same disease, in order to identify characteristics or outcomes in a particular group of people.

Case series are useful for studying rare diseases or adverse outcomes, for illustrating particular aspects of a condition, identifying treatment approaches, and for generating hypotheses for further study.

A case report provides a study of an individual, rather than a group.

Case series and case reports have no comparative control groups, and are prone to bias and chance association.

Expert opinion

Expert opinion draws upon the clinical experience and recommendations of those with established expertise on a topic.

Grounded theory

Grounded theory studies aim to generate theory in order to explain social processes, interactions or issues. This explanatory theory is grounded in, and generated from, the research participant data collected.

Research data typically takes the form of interviews, observations or documents. Data is analysed as it is collected, and is coded and organised into categories which inform the further collection of data, and the construction of theory. This cycle helps to refine the theory, which evolves as more data is gathered.

Phenomenology

A phenomenological study aims to describe the meaning(s) of the lived experience of a phenomenon. Research participants will have some common experience of the phenomenon under examination, but will differ in their precise individual experience, and in other personal or social characteristics.

Research data is typically in the form of observations, interviews or written records, and its analysis sets out to identify common themes in the participants' experience, while also highlighting variations and unique themes.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the study of a specific culture or cultural group, where the researcher seeks an insider perspective by placing themselves as a participant observer within the group under study.

Data is typically formed of observations, interviews and conversation. Ethnography aims to offer direct insight into the lives and the experiences of the group or the culture under study, examining its beliefs, values, practices and behaviours.

A case study offers a detailed description of the experience of an individual, a family, a community or an organisation, often with the aim of highlighting a particular issue. Research data may include documents, interviews and observations.

Content analysis

Content analysis is used to explore the occurrence, meanings and relationships of words, themes or concepts within a set of textual data. Research data might be drawn from any type of written document(s). Data is coded and categorised, with the aim of revealing and examining the patterns and the intentions of language use within the data set.

Narrative inquiry

A narrative inquiry offers in depth detail of a situation or experience from the perspective of an individual or small groups. Research data usually consists of interviews or recordings, which is presented as a structured, chronological narrative. Narrative inquiry studies often seek to give voice to individuals or populations whose perspective is less well established, or not commonly sought.

Action research

Action research is a form of research, commonly used with groups, where the participants take a more active, collaborative role in producing the research. Studies incorporate the lived experiences of the individuals, groups or communities under study, drawing on data which might include observation, interviews, questionnaires or workshops.

Action research is generally aimed at changing or improving a particular context, or a specific practice, alongside the generation of theory.

Explanatory sequential design

In an explanatory sequential study, emphasis is given to the collection and analysis of quantitative data, which occurs during the first phase of the study. The results of this quantitative phase inform the subsequent collection of qualitative data in the next phase.

Analysis of the resultant qualitative data is then used to 'explain' the quantitative results, usually serving to contextualise these, or to otherwise enhance or enrich the initial findings.

Exploratory sequential design

In an exploratory sequential study, the opposite sequence to that outlined above is used. In this case, qualitative data is emphasised, with this being collected and analysed during the first phase of the study. The results of this qualitative phase inform the subsequent collection of quantitative data in the next phase.

The quantitative data can then be used to define or to generalise the qualitative results, or to test these results on the basis of theory emerging from the initial findings.

Convergent design

In a convergent study, qualitative and quantitative data sets are collected and analysed simultaneously and independently of one another.

Results from analysis of both sets of data are brought together to provide one overall interpretation; this combination of data types can be handled in various ways, but the objective is always to provide a fuller understanding of the phenomena under study. Equal emphasis is given to both qualitative and quantitative data in a convergent study.

• << Previous: Secondary research
• Next: Critical appraisal of research papers >>
• Last Updated: Mar 26, 2024 4:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sgul.ac.uk/researchdesign

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Primary Research: What It Is, Purpose & Methods + Examples

As we continue exploring the exciting research world, we’ll come across two primary and secondary data approaches. This article will focus on primary research – what it is, how it’s done, and why it’s essential. 

We’ll discuss the methods used to gather first-hand data and examples of how it’s applied in various fields. Get ready to discover how this research can be used to solve research problems , answer questions, and drive innovation.

What is Primary Research: Definition

Primary research is a methodology researchers use to collect data directly rather than depending on data collected from previously done research. Technically, they “own” the data. Primary research is solely carried out to address a certain problem, which requires in-depth analysis .

There are two forms of research:

• Primary Research
• Secondary Research

Businesses or organizations can conduct primary research or employ a third party to conduct research. One major advantage of primary research is this type of research is “pinpointed.” Research only focuses on a specific issue or problem and on obtaining related solutions.

For example, a brand is about to launch a new mobile phone model and wants to research the looks and features they will soon introduce. 

Organizations can select a qualified sample of respondents closely resembling the population and conduct primary research with them to know their opinions. Based on this research, the brand can now think of probable solutions to make necessary changes in the looks and features of the mobile phone.

Primary Research Methods with Examples

In this technology-driven world, meaningful data is more valuable than gold. Organizations or businesses need highly validated data to make informed decisions. This is the very reason why many companies are proactive in gathering their own data so that the authenticity of data is maintained and they get first-hand data without any alterations.

Here are some of the primary research methods organizations or businesses use to collect data:

1. Interviews (telephonic or face-to-face)

Conducting interviews is a qualitative research method to collect data and has been a popular method for ages. These interviews can be conducted in person (face-to-face) or over the telephone. Interviews are an open-ended method that involves dialogues or interaction between the interviewer (researcher) and the interviewee (respondent).

Conducting a face-to-face interview method is said to generate a better response from respondents as it is a more personal approach. However, the success of face-to-face interviews depends heavily on the researcher’s ability to ask questions and his/her experience related to conducting such interviews in the past. The types of questions that are used in this type of research are mostly open-ended questions . These questions help to gain in-depth insights into the opinions and perceptions of respondents.

Personal interviews usually last up to 30 minutes or even longer, depending on the subject of research. If a researcher is running short of time conducting telephonic interviews can also be helpful to collect data.

2. Online surveys

Once conducted with pen and paper, surveys have come a long way since then. Today, most researchers use online surveys to send to respondents to gather information from them. Online surveys are convenient and can be sent by email or can be filled out online. These can be accessed on handheld devices like smartphones, tablets, iPads, and similar devices.

Once a survey is deployed, a certain amount of stipulated time is given to respondents to answer survey questions and send them back to the researcher. In order to get maximum information from respondents, surveys should have a good mix of open-ended questions and close-ended questions . The survey should not be lengthy. Respondents lose interest and tend to leave it half-done.

It is a good practice to reward respondents for successfully filling out surveys for their time and efforts and valuable information. Most organizations or businesses usually give away gift cards from reputed brands that respondents can redeem later.

3. Focus groups

This popular research technique is used to collect data from a small group of people, usually restricted to 6-10. Focus group brings together people who are experts in the subject matter for which research is being conducted.

Focus group has a moderator who stimulates discussions among the members to get greater insights. Organizations and businesses can make use of this method, especially to identify niche markets to learn about a specific group of consumers.

4. Observations

In this primary research method, there is no direct interaction between the researcher and the person/consumer being observed. The researcher observes the reactions of a subject and makes notes.

Trained observers or cameras are used to record reactions. Observations are noted in a predetermined situation. For example, a bakery brand wants to know how people react to its new biscuits, observes notes on consumers’ first reactions, and evaluates collective data to draw inferences .

Primary Research vs Secondary Research – The Differences

Primary and secondary research are two distinct approaches to gathering information, each with its own characteristics and advantages. 

While primary research involves conducting surveys to gather firsthand data from potential customers, secondary market research is utilized to analyze existing industry reports and competitor data, providing valuable context and benchmarks for the survey findings.

Find out more details about the differences: 

1. Definition

• Primary Research: Involves the direct collection of original data specifically for the research project at hand. Examples include surveys, interviews, observations, and experiments.
• Secondary Research: Involves analyzing and interpreting existing data, literature, or information. This can include sources like books, articles, databases, and reports.

2. Data Source

• Primary Research: Data is collected directly from individuals, experiments, or observations.
• Secondary Research: Data is gathered from already existing sources.

3. Time and Cost

• Primary Research: Often time-consuming and can be costly due to the need for designing and implementing research instruments and collecting new data.
• Secondary Research: Generally more time and cost-effective, as it relies on readily available data.

4. Customization

• Primary Research: Provides tailored and specific information, allowing researchers to address unique research questions.
• Secondary Research: Offers information that is pre-existing and may not be as customized to the specific needs of the researcher.
• Primary Research: Researchers have control over the research process, including study design, data collection methods , and participant selection.
• Secondary Research: Limited control, as researchers rely on data collected by others.

6. Originality

• Primary Research: Generates original data that hasn’t been analyzed before.
• Secondary Research: Involves the analysis of data that has been previously collected and analyzed.

7. Relevance and Timeliness

• Primary Research: Often provides more up-to-date and relevant data or information.
• Secondary Research: This may involve data that is outdated, but it can still be valuable for historical context or broad trends.

Advantages of Primary Research

Primary research has several advantages over other research methods, making it an indispensable tool for anyone seeking to understand their target market, improve their products or services, and stay ahead of the competition. So let’s dive in and explore the many benefits of primary research.

• One of the most important advantages is data collected is first-hand and accurate. In other words, there is no dilution of data. Also, this research method can be customized to suit organizations’ or businesses’ personal requirements and needs .
• I t focuses mainly on the problem at hand, which means entire attention is directed to finding probable solutions to a pinpointed subject matter. Primary research allows researchers to go in-depth about a matter and study all foreseeable options.
• Data collected can be controlled. I T gives a means to control how data is collected and used. It’s up to the discretion of businesses or organizations who are collecting data how to best make use of data to get meaningful research insights.
• I t is a time-tested method, therefore, one can rely on the results that are obtained from conducting this type of research.

Disadvantages of Primary Research

While primary research is a powerful tool for gathering unique and firsthand data, it also has its limitations. As we explore the drawbacks, we’ll gain a deeper understanding of when primary research may not be the best option and how to work around its challenges.

• One of the major disadvantages of primary research is it can be quite expensive to conduct. One may be required to spend a huge sum of money depending on the setup or primary research method used. Not all businesses or organizations may be able to spend a considerable amount of money.
• This type of research can be time-consuming. Conducting interviews and sending and receiving online surveys can be quite an exhaustive process and require investing time and patience for the process to work. Moreover, evaluating results and applying the findings to improve a product or service will need additional time.
• Sometimes, just using one primary research method may not be enough. In such cases, the use of more than one method is required, and this might increase both the time required to conduct research and the cost associated with it.

Every research is conducted with a purpose. Primary research is conducted by organizations or businesses to stay informed of the ever-changing market conditions and consumer perception. Excellent customer satisfaction (CSAT) has become a key goal and objective of many organizations.

A customer-centric organization knows the importance of providing exceptional products and services to its customers to increase customer loyalty and decrease customer churn. Organizations collect data and analyze it by conducting primary research to draw highly evaluated results and conclusions. Using this information, organizations are able to make informed decisions based on real data-oriented insights.

QuestionPro is a comprehensive survey platform that can be used to conduct primary research. Users can create custom surveys and distribute them to their target audience , whether it be through email, social media, or a website.

QuestionPro also offers advanced features such as skip logic, branching, and data analysis tools, making collecting and analyzing data easier. With QuestionPro, you can gather valuable insights and make informed decisions based on the results of your primary research. Start today for free!

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Age Gating: Effective Strategies for Online Content Control

Aug 23, 2024

Customer Experience Lessons from 13,000 Feet — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Aug 20, 2024

Insight: Definition & meaning, types and examples

Aug 19, 2024

Employee Loyalty: Strategies for Long-Term Business Success 

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• Student Services
• Faculty Services

Peer Review and Primary Literature: An Introduction: Is it Primary Research? How Do I Know?

• Scholarly Journal vs. Magazine
• Peer Review: What is it?
• Finding Peer-Reviewed Articles
• Primary Journal Literature
• Is it Primary Research? How Do I Know?

Components of a Primary Research Study

As indicated on a previous page, Peer-Reviewed Journals also include non -primary content. Simply limiting your search results in a database to "peer-reviewed" will not retrieve a list of only primary research studies.

Learn to recognize the parts of a primary research study. Terminology will vary slightly from discipline to discipline and from journal to journal.  However, there are common components to most research studies.

When you run a search, find a promising article in your results list and then look at the record for that item (usually by clicking on the title). The full database record for an item usually includes an abstract or summary--sometimes prepared by the journal or database, but often written by the author(s) themselves. This will usually give a clear indication of whether the article is a primary study.  For example, here is a full database record from a search for family violence and support in SocINDEX with Full Text :

Although the abstract often tells the story, you will need to read the article to know for sure. Besides scanning the Abstract or Summary, look for the following components: (I am only capturing small article segments for illustration.)

Look for the words METHOD or METHODOLOGY . The authors should explain how they conducted their research.

NOTE: Different Journals and Disciplines will use different terms to mean similar things. If instead of " Method " or " Methodology " you see a heading that says " Research Design " or " Data Collection ," you have a similar indicator that the scholar-authors have done original research.

Look for the section called RESULTS . This details what the author(s) found out after conducting their research.

Charts , Tables , Graphs , Maps and other displays help to summarize and present the findings of the research.

A Discussion indicates the significance of findings, acknowledges limitations of the research study, and suggests further research.

References , a Bibliography or List of Works Cited indicates a literature review and shows other studies and works that were consulted. USE THIS PART OF THE STUDY! If you find one or two good recent studies, you can identify some important earlier studies simply by going through the bibliographies of those articles.

A FINAL NOTE:  If you are ever unclear about whether a particular article is appropriate to use in your paper, it is best to show that article to your professor and discuss it with them.  The professor is the final judge since they will be assigning your grade.

Subject Guide

• << Previous: Primary Journal Literature
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 10:06 AM
• URL: https://suffolk.libguides.com/PeerandPrimary

Finding Scholarly Articles: Home

What's a Scholarly Article?

Your professor has specified that you are to use scholarly (or primary research or peer-reviewed or refereed or academic) articles only in your paper. What does that mean?

Scholarly or primary research articles are peer-reviewed , which means that they have gone through the process of being read by reviewers or referees  before being accepted for publication. When a scholar submits an article to a scholarly journal, the manuscript is sent to experts in that field to read and decide if the research is valid and the article should be published. Typically the reviewers indicate to the journal editors whether they think the article should be accepted, sent back for revisions, or rejected.

To decide whether an article is a primary research article, look for the following:

• The author’s (or authors') credentials and academic affiliation(s) should be given;
• There should be an abstract summarizing the research;
• The methods and materials used should be given, often in a separate section;
• There are citations within the text or footnotes referencing sources used;
• Results of the research are given;
• There should be discussion   and  conclusion ;
• With a bibliography or list of references at the end.

Caution: even though a journal may be peer-reviewed, not all the items in it will be. For instance, there might be editorials, book reviews, news reports, etc. Check for the parts of the article to be sure.   

You can limit your search results to primary research, peer-reviewed or refereed articles in many databases. To search for scholarly articles in  HOLLIS , type your keywords in the box at the top, and select  Catalog&Articles  from the choices that appear next.   On the search results screen, look for the  Show Only section on the right and click on  Peer-reviewed articles . (Make sure to  login in with your HarvardKey to get full-text of the articles that Harvard has purchased.)

Many of the databases that Harvard offers have similar features to limit to peer-reviewed or scholarly articles.  For example in Academic Search Premier , click on the box for Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals  on the search screen.

Review articles are another great way to find scholarly primary research articles.   Review articles are not considered "primary research", but they pull together primary research articles on a topic, summarize and analyze them.  In Google Scholar , click on Review Articles  at the left of the search results screen. Ask your professor whether review articles can be cited for an assignment.

A note about Google searching.  A regular Google search turns up a broad variety of results, which can include scholarly articles but Google results also contain commercial and popular sources which may be misleading, outdated, etc.  Use Google Scholar  through the Harvard Library instead.

About Wikipedia .  W ikipedia is not considered scholarly, and should not be cited, but it frequently includes references to scholarly articles. Before using those references for an assignment, double check by finding them in Hollis or a more specific subject  database .

Still not sure about a source? Consult the course syllabus for guidance, contact your professor or teaching fellow, or use the Ask A Librarian service.

• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/FindingScholarlyArticles

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

27 Real Primary Research Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Primary research is a type of academic research that involves collecting new and original data to conduct a study.

Examples of primary research include studies that collect data through interviews, questionnaires, original text analysis, observation, surveys, focus groups, case studies, and ethnography.

It is the opposite of secondary research which involves looking at existing data to identify trends or new insights. Both secondary and primary research are legitimate forms of academic research.

Primary Research Examples

1. interviews.

Interviews involve approaching relevant people and asking them questions to gather their thoughts and opinions on a topic. This can take the form of structured, semi-strutured, and unstructured interviews.

Structured interviews generally do not involve back-and-forth discussion between the researcher and the research participant, while semi-structured and unstructured interviews involve the interviewer asking follow-up questions to dig deeper and elicit more insights.

2. Questionnaires and Surveys

Questionnaires are text-based interviews where a set of questions are written down by the researchers and sent to the research participants. The participants fill out the questionnaires and return them to the researcher.

The researcher then anonymizes the data and analyzes it by looking for trends and patterns across the dataset. They may do this manually or use research tools to find similarities and differences in the responses of the research participants.

A simple questionnaire can take the form of a Likert scale which involves asking a research participant to circle their opinion on a set of pre-determined responses (e.g. ‘Very Likely, Likely, Unlikely, Very Unlikely’). Other questionnaires require participants to write detailed paragraphs responding to questions which can then be analyzed.

One benefit of surveys over interviews is that it’s easier to gather large datasets.

3. Control Group Analysis

Control group analyses involve separating research participants into two groups: the control group and the experimental group.

An intervention is applied to the experimental group. Researchers then observe the results and compare them to the control group to find out the effects of the intervention.

This sort of research is very common in medical research. For example, a new pill on the market might be used on two groups of sick patients to see whether the pill was effective in improving one group’s condition. If so, it may receive approval to go into the market.

4. Observation Studies

Observational studies involve the researchers entering a research setting and recording their naturalistic observations of what they see. These observations can then form the basis of a thesis.

Longer-term observation studies where the researcher is embedded in a community are called ethnographic studies.

Tools for observation studies include simple pen-and-paper written vignettes about a topic, recording with the consent of research participants, or using field measuring devices.

Observational studies in fields like anthropology can lead to rich and detailed explanations of complex phenomena through a process called thick description . However, they’re inherently qualitative, subjective , and small-case studies that often make it difficult to make future predictions or hard scientific findings.

Another research limitation is that the presence of the researcher can sometimes affect the behavior of the people or animals being observed.

Go Deeper: 15 Ethnography Examples

5. Focus Groups

Focus groups are similar to interviews, but involve small groups of research participants interacting with the interviewer and, sometimes, one another.

Focus group research is common, for example, in political research, where political parties commission independent research organizations to collect data about the electorate’s perceptions of the candidates. This can help inform them of how to more effectively position the candidate in advertising and press stops.

The biggest benefit of focus group studies is that they can gather qualitative information from a wider range of research participants than one-to-one interviews. However, the downside is that research participants tend to influence each others’ responses.

See More: Examples of Focus Groups

6. Online Surveys

Online surveys are similar in purpose to offline questionnaires and surveys, but have unique benefits and limitations.

Like offline surveys and questionnaires, they can be in the form of written responses, multiple choice, and Likert scales.

However, they have some key benefits including: capacity to cast a wide net, ease of snowball sampling, and ease of finding participants.

These strengths also present some potential weaknesses: poorly designed online surveys may be corrupted if the sample is not sufficiently vetted and only distributed to non-representative sample sets (of course, this can be offset, depending on the study design).

7. Action Research

Action research involves practitioners conducting just-in-time research in an authentic setting to improve their own practice. The researcher is an active participant who studies the effects of interventions.

It sits in contrast to other forms of primary research in this list, which are mostly conducted by researchers who attempt to detach themselves from the subject of study. Action research, on the other hand, involves a researcher who is also a participant.

Action research is most commonly used in classrooms, where teachers take the role of researchers to improve their own teaching and learning practices. However, action research can be used in other fields as well, particularly healthcare and social work.

Go Deeper: 21 Action Research Examples

8. Discourse and Textual Analysis

Discourse and textual analyses are studies of language and text. They could involve, for example, the collection of a selection of newspaper articles published within a defined timeframe to identify the ideological leanings of the newspapers.

This sort of analysis can also explore the language use of media to study how media constructs stereotypes. The quintessential example is the study of gender identities is Disney texts, which has historically shown how Disney texts promote and normalize gender roles that children could internalize.

Textual analysis is often confused as a type of secondary research. However, as long as the texts are primary sources examined from scratch, it should be considered primary research and not the analysis of an existing dataset.

Go Deeper: 21 Discourse Analysis Examples

9. Multimodal, Visual, and Semiotic Analysis

Discourse and textual analyses traditionally focused on words and written text. But with the increasing presence of visual texts in our lives, scholars had to come up with primary research studies that involved the analysis of multimodal texts .

This led to studies such as semiotics and multimodal discourse analysis. This is still considered primary research because it involves the direct analysis of primary data (such as pictures, posters, and movies).

While these studies tend to borrow significantly from written text analysis, they include methods such as social semiotic to explore how signs and symbols garner meaning in social contexts. This enables scholars to examine, for example, children’s drawings through to famous artworks.

Often, primary research is a more highly-regarded type of research than secondary research because it involves gathering new data.

However, secondary research should not be discounted: the synthesis, categorization, and critique of an existing corpus of research can reveal excellent new insights and help to consolidate academic knowledge and even challenge longstanding assumptions .

References for the mentioned studies (APA Style)

Atack, L., & Rankin, J. (2002). A descriptive study of registered nurses’ experiences with web‐based learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 40 (4), 457-465.

Baughcum, A. E., Burklow, K. A., Deeks, C. M., Powers, S. W., & Whitaker, R. C. (1998). Maternal feeding practices and childhood obesity: a focus group study of low-income mothers. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine , 152 (10), 1010-1014.

Calvert, M., & Sheen, Y. (2015). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research study. Language Teaching Research , 19 (2), 226-244.

Coker, D. L., Farley-Ripple, E., Jackson, A. F., Wen, H., MacArthur, C. A., & Jennings, A. S. (2016). Writing instruction in first grade: An observational study. Reading and Writing , 29 (5), 793-832.

Cossrow, N. H., Jeffery, R. W., & McGuire, M. T. (2001). Understanding weight stigmatization: A focus group study. Journal of nutrition education , 33 (4), 208-214.

Costello, J. (2006). Dying well: nurses’ experiences of ‘good and bad’deaths in hospital. Journal of advanced nursing , 54 (5), 594-601.

Deckx, L., Mitchell, G., Rosenberg, J., Kelly, M., Carmont, S. A., & Yates, P. (2019). General practitioners’ engagement in end-of-life care: a semi-structured interview study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care .

Drew, C. (2013). Elitism for sale: Promoting the elite school online in the competitive educational marketplace. Australian Journal of Education , 57 (2), 174-184.

Erdener, M. A., & Knoeppel, R. C. (2018). Parents’ Perceptions of Their Involvement in Schooling. International Journal of Research in Education and Science , 4 (1), 1-13.

Felicia, O. (2021). A social semiotic analysis of gender power in Nigeria’s newspaper political cartoons. Social Semiotics , 31 (2), 266-281.

Gardner, C. D., Trepanowski, J. F., Del Gobbo, L. C., Hauser, M. E., Rigdon, J., Ioannidis, J. P., … & King, A. C. (2018). Effect of low-fat vs low-carbohydrate diet on 12-month weight loss in overweight adults and the association with genotype pattern or insulin secretion: the DIETFITS randomized clinical trial. Jama , 319 (7), 667-679.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media , 27 (1), 57.

Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education , 35 (4), 463-481.

Karlsson, J., & Juslin, P. N. (2008). Musical expression: An observational study of instrumental teaching. Psychology of music , 36 (3), 309-334.

Liu, D., Huang, Y., Huang, C., Yang, S., Wei, X., Zhang, P., … & Zhang, H. (2022). Calorie restriction with or without time-restricted eating in weight loss. New England Journal of Medicine , 386 (16), 1495-1504.

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning , 22 (1), 205-222.

Munro, M. (2018). House price inflation in the news: a critical discourse analysis of newspaper coverage in the UK. Housing Studies , 33 (7), 1085-1105.

O’bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters!. Computers & Education , 74 , 15-25.

Olsen, M., Udo, C., Dahlberg, L., & Boström, A. M. (2022). Older Persons’ Views on Important Values in Swedish Home Care Service: A Semi-Structured Interview Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare , 15 , 967.

Ravn, I. M., Frederiksen, K., & Beedholm, K. (2016). The chronic responsibility: a critical discourse analysis of Danish chronic care policies. Qualitative Health Research , 26 (4), 545-554.

Sacks, F. M., Bray, G. A., Carey, V. J., Smith, S. R., Ryan, D. H., Anton, S. D., … & Williamson, D. A. (2009). Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. New England Journal of Medicine , 360 (9), 859-873.

Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review , 67 (3), 315-327.

Samaras, G., Bonoti, F., & Christidou, V. (2012). Exploring children’s perceptions of scientists through drawings and interviews. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 46 , 1541-1546.

Sengul, K. (2019). Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: a case study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia. Communication Research and Practice , 5 (4), 376-392.

Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., … & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries.

Stawarz, K., Preist, C., & Coyle, D. (2019). Use of smartphone apps, social media, and web-based resources to support mental health and well-being: online survey. JMIR mental health , 6 (7), e12546.Towns, M. H., Kreke, K., & Fields, A. (2000). An action research project: Student perspectives on small-group learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education , 77 (1), 111.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Animal Science

How to identify peer reviewed journals, how to identify primary research articles.

• Reference Sources
• Key Journals
• Writing & Citing
• Self Checkout
• Anatomy Study Resources
• Peer Reviewed Journals Quiz How do I know if a journal is peer reviewed? What is peer review, anyway? Take this short quiz to test your knowledge and perhaps learn something new!
• Primary Research Articles Quiz How do I know if an article is a primary or secondary research article? Are there search techniques that will help me find them? Take this short quiz to test your knowledge and perhaps learn something new!

You must get all answers correct to submit the quiz!

Peer review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two purposes:

• It acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study.
• Peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

How do you determine whether an article qualifies as being a peer-reviewed journal article?

• If you're searching for articles in certain databases, you can limit your search to peer-reviewed sources simply by selecting a tab or checking a box on the search screen.
• If you have an article, an indication that it has been through the peer review process will be the publication history , usually at the beginning or end of the article.
• If you're looking at the journal itself, go to the  editorial statement or instructions to authors  (usually in the first few pages of the journal or at the end) for references to the peer-review process.
• Lookup the journal by title or ISSN in the ProQuest Source Evaluation Aid . 
• Careful! Not all information in a peer-reviewed journal is actually reviewed. Editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and other types of information don't count as articles, and may not be accepted by your professor.

What about preprint sites and ResearchGate?

• A preprint is a piece of research that has not yet been peer reviewed and published in a journal. In most cases, they can be considered final drafts or working papers. Preprint sites are great sources of current research - and most preprint sites will provide a link to a later, peer-reviewed version of an article. 
• ResearchGate is a commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators. Members can upload research output including papers, chapters, negative results, patents, research proposals, methods, presentations, etc. Researchers can access these materials, and also contact members to ask for access to material that has not been shared, usually because of copyright restrictions. There is a filter to limit results to articles, but it can be difficult to determine the publication history of ResearchGate items and whether they have been published in peer reviewed sources.

A primary research article reports on an empirical research study conducted by the authors. The goal of a primary research article is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge. 

Characteristics:

• Almost always published in a peer-reviewed journal
• Asks a research question or states a hypothesis or hypotheses
• Identifies a research population
• Describes a specific research method
• Tests or measures something
• Often (but not always) structured in a standard format called IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion
• Words to look for as clues include: analysis, study, investigation, examination, experiment, numbers of people or objects analyzed, content analysis, or surveys.

To contrast, the following are not primary research articles (i.e., they are secondary sources):

• Literature reviews/Review articles
• Meta-Analyses (studies that arrive at conclusions based on research from many other studies)
• Editorials & Letters
• Dissertations

Articles that are NOT primary research articles may discuss the same research, but they are not reporting on original research, they are summarizing and commenting on research conducted and published by someone else. For example, a literature review provides commentary and analysis of research done by other people, but it does not report the results of the author's own study and is not primary research.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Reference Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 24, 2023 2:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.berry.edu/ans

Primary Sources: What They Are and Where to Find Them

What is a primary source.

• Finding Primary Sources in the UWRF Library

A primary source is an original object or document created during the time under study.   Primary sources vary by discipline and can include historical and legal documents, diaries, letters, family records, speeches, interviews, autobiographies, film, government documents, eye witness accounts, results of an experiment, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, and art objects. In the natural and social sciences, the results of an experiment or study are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources.  

A secondary source is something written about a primary source. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material. You can think of secondary sources as second-hand information. If I tell you something, I am the primary source. If you tell someone else what I told you, you are the secondard source. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.

Research versus Review

Scientific and other peer reviewed journals are excellent sources for primary research sources. However, not every article in those journals will be an article with original research. Some will include book reviews and other materials that are more obviously secondary sources . More difficult to differentiate from original research articles are review articles . Both types of articles will end with a list of References (or Works Cited). Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing is analysing and evaluating current research or investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be helpful for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections entitled Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods), Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables), and Discussion . You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented. If it is a review article instead of a research article, the abstract should make that clear. If there is no abstract at all, that in itself may be a sign that it is not a primary resource. Short research articles, such as those found in Science and similar scientific publications that mix news, editorials, and forums with research reports, may not include any of those elements. In those cases look at the words the authors use, phrases such as "we tested," "we used," and "in our study, we measured" will tell you that the article is reporting on original research.

Primary or Secondary: You Decide

The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a secondary source may also be a primary source. DoVeanna Fulton's book on slave narratives, for example, can be looked at as both a secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are researching slave narratives, the book would be a secondary source because Fulton is commenting on the narratives. If your assignment is to write a book review of Speaking Power , the book becomes a primary source, because you are commenting, evaluating, and discussing DoVeanna Fulton's ideas.

You can't always determine if something is primary or secondary just because of the source it is found in. Articles in newspapers and magazines are usually considered secondary sources. However, if a story in a newspaper about the Iraq war is an eyewitness account, that would be a primary source. If the reporter, however, includes additional materials he or she has gathered through interviews or other investigations, the article would be a secondary source. An interview in the Rolling Stone with Chris Robinson of the Black Crowes would be a primary source, but a review of the latest Black Crowes album would be a secondary source. In contrast, scholarly journals include research articles with primary materials, but they also have review articles that are not, or in some disciplines include articles where scholars are looking at primary source materials and coming to new conclusions.

For your thinking and not just to confuse you even further, some experts include tertiary sources as an additional distinction to make. These are sources that compile or, especially, digest other sources. Some reference materials and textbooks are considered tertiary sources when their chief purpose is to list or briefly summarize or, from an even further removed distance, repackage ideas. This is the reason that you may be advised not to include an encyclopedia article in a final bibliography.

The above material was adapted from the excellent explanation written by John Henderson found on Ithaca College's library website http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary and is used with permission.

• Next: Finding Primary Sources in the UWRF Library >>
• Last Updated: Nov 8, 2023 3:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwrf.edu/primarysources

Identifying Primary and Secondary Research Articles

• Primary and Secondary

Primary Research Articles

Primary research articles report on a single study. In the health sciences, primary research articles generally describe the following aspects of the study:

• The study's hypothesis or research question
• Some articles will include information on how participants were recruited or identified, as well as additional information about participants' sex, age, or race/ethnicity
• A "methods" or "methodology" section that describes how the study was performed and what the researchers did
• Results and conclusion section

Secondary Research Articles

Review articles are the most common type of secondary research article in the health sciences. A review article is a summary of previously published research on a topic. Authors who are writing a review article will search databases for previously completed research and summarize or synthesize those articles,  as opposed to recruiting participants and performing a new research study.

Specific types of review articles include:

• Systematic Reviews
• Meta-Analysis
• Narrative Reviews
• Integrative Reviews
• Literature Reviews

Review articles often report on the following:

• The hypothesis, research question, or review topic
• Databases searched-- authors should clearly describe where and how they searched for the research included in their reviews
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis should provide detailed information on the databases searched and the search strategy the authors used.Selection criteria-- the researchers should describe how they decided which articles to include
• A critical appraisal or evaluation of the quality of the articles included (most frequently included in systematic reviews and meta-analysis)
• Discussion, results, and conclusions

Determining Primary versus Secondary Using the Database Abstract

Information found in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and other databases can help you determine whether the article you're looking at is primary or secondary.

Primary research article abstract

• Note that in the "Objectives" field, the authors describe their single, individual study.
• In the materials and methods section, they describe the number of patients included in the study and how those patients were divided into groups.
• These are all clues that help us determine this abstract is describing is a single, primary research article, as opposed to a literature review.
• Primary Article Abstract

Secondary research/review article abstract

• Note that the words "systematic review" and "meta-analysis" appear in the title of the article
• The objectives field also includes the term "meta-analysis" (a common type of literature review in the health sciences)
• The "Data Source" section includes a list of databases searched
• The "Study Selection" section describes the selection criteria
• These are all clues that help us determine that this abstract is describing a review article, as opposed to a single, primary research article.
• Secondary Research Article

• Primary vs. Secondary Worksheet

Full Text Challenge

Can you determine if the following articles are primary or secondary?

• Last Updated: Feb 17, 2024 5:25 PM
• URL: https://library.usfca.edu/primary-secondary

2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 415-422-5555

• Facebook (link is external)
• Instagram (link is external)
• Twitter (link is external)
• YouTube (link is external)
• Consumer Information
• Privacy Statement
• Web Accessibility

Copyright © 2022 University of San Francisco

• SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
• Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

• Research Starters
• Citing Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Peer Review
• How to Read a Scientific Article
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

• Penfield Library
• Research Guides
• A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

• Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
• Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
• Typically organized into sections that include:  Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

• Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
• Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.  
• Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Peer Review >>

Understanding and Evaluating Resources

• Evaluating Journal Articles
• Evaluating News Resources
• Evaluating Web Resources
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Different Types of Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources

What is a primary source?

Search Primary Sources @ RWU

What is a secondary source.

What is a tertiary source?

• Encyclopedias, like Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.
• Dictionaries, like Oxford English Dictionary, Etymology Online, etc.
• Almanacs, like World Almanac, Book of Facts, etc.
• Factbooks, like CIA World Factbook
• Chronologies, like Chronicle of the 20th Century
• Some Textbooks
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 10:35 AM
• URL: https://rwu.libguides.com/EvaluatingSources

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 24 August 2024

Orthodontics

Management of white spot enamel lesions with resin infiltration: potentials and future research directions

• Soumya Narayani Thirumoorthy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1792-9866 1 &
• Saumiya Gopal 2  

Evidence-Based Dentistry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Preventive dentistry

The current study 1 is a randomized controlled trial with two arm, multicenter and parallel group design.

Case selection

Study subjects were 38 orthodontic patients younger than 17 years who were being treated with metal braces. Patients with at least one white spot lesion (WSL) graded 1 to 2 according to the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) on the labial surface of permanent maxillary and mandibular canines and incisors were included for the trial. Teeth with carious lesions and restorations, anomalies of the enamel, and primary teeth were excluded.

Patients were allocated by computer generated random sequence into resin infiltration and fluoride varnish intervention groups. Study subjects were blinded until the allocation, outcome assessors and statisticians remained blinded through the study, however the operators could not be blinded. Resin infiltration treatment involved removal of orthodontic wires and auxiliaries followed by cleaning the teeth with fluoride free prophylactic paste and completing the resin infiltration according to manufacturer’s instructions. In the fluoride varnish group, a thin layer of the material was applied after isolating the teeth, and patients were asked not to eat or drink for 1 hour. This was continued twice a month for 6 months. Digital images of the teeth were obtained before, and 1 day (T1), 1 week (T2), 1 month (T3), 3 months (T4) and 6 months (T5) after treatment, using a DSLR camera and a matching polarization filter. The images were processed for calibration and color stability. Regions of interest representing WSL (white spot lesion) and SAE (sound adjacent enamel) were isolated in the images for comparison at different stages the images were captured.

Data analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 28. Independent-samples t -test was utilized for comparison between the two groups, and paired-samples t -test for comparison within the groups. A statistical significance level of α  = 0.05 was set.

At T1, significant color difference was observed between white spot lesion and adjacent sound enamel in the resin infiltration group and it remained stable after 6 months. Whereas in the fluoride varnish group, there were no statistical differences from baseline to 6 months. A statistical difference of 3.27 CIELAB units ( p  < 0.001) was reported between the infiltration group and the fluoride group at T5. No significant changes were noted in SAE with respect to changes in lightness.

Conclusions

Resin infiltration was found to be better at masking the demineralization produced by WSL and also enhanced the esthetic appearance of demineralized areas around the brackets. Resin infiltration did not produce any clinically visible effects in non-affected enamel. These changes remained stable for a period of 6 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 4 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 62,85 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Kashash Y, Hein S, Göstemeyer G, Aslanalp P, Weyland MI, Bartzela T. Resin infiltration versus fluoride varnish for visual improvement of white spot lesions during multibracket treatment. A randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28:308.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guzmán-Armstrong S, Chalmers J, Warren JJ. Ask us. White spot lesions: prevention and treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:690–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Klaisiri A, Janchum S, Wongsomtakoon K, Sirimanathon P, Krajangta N. Microleakage of resin infiltration in artificial white-spot lesions. J Oral Sci. 2020;62:427–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Soveral M, Machado V, Botelho J, Mendes JJ, Manso C. Effect of resin infiltration on enamel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Funct Biomater. 2021;12:48.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tennert C, Suárez Machado L, Jaeggi T, Meyer-Lueckel H, Wierichs RJ. Posterior ceramic versus metal restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2022;38:1623–32.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Smilelife Orthodontics, Corpus Christi, TX, USA

Soumya Narayani Thirumoorthy

Department of Periodontics, KMCT Dental College, Kozhikode, India

Saumiya Gopal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumya Narayani Thirumoorthy .

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Thirumoorthy, S.N., Gopal, S. Management of white spot enamel lesions with resin infiltration: potentials and future research directions. Evid Based Dent (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01056-w

Download citation

Received : 29 July 2024

Accepted : 16 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01056-w

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Faculty A-Z
• Faculty Instructions
• Faculty by Department
• Student Research Home
• Faculty By Keyword
• Keyword Search

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Smilow Shares with Primary Care: Benign Hematology

Presenters:

Karen Brown, MD

Eric Chang, MD

Layla Van Doren, MD, MBA

Presenters: Karen Brown, MD Eric Chang, MD Layla Van Doren, MD, MBA

Featured in this article

• Anne Chiang, MD, PhD Associate Professor; Associate Cancer Center Director, Clinical Initiatives
• Eric Chang, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine (Hematology)
• Layla Van Doren, MD, MBA Assistant Professor; Director of MS1 Hematology Course, Hematology; Director of Education, Adult Sickle Cell Program, Internal Medicine
• Karen Brown, PA-C Staff Affiliate - YNHH

Related Links

• Smilow Shares with Primary Care Series

Smilow Shares with Primary Care

Lung Cancer Screening

Smilow Shares with Primary Care - Bladder Cancer

Smilow shares with primary care - breast cancer.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Harris Energizes Democrats in Transformed Presidential Race

1. the presidential matchup: harris, trump, kennedy, table of contents.

• Other findings: Both Harris and Trump are viewed more favorably than a few months ago
• Voting preferences among demographic groups
• How have voters shifted their preferences since July?
• Harris’ supporters back her more strongly than Biden’s did last month
• Large gap in motivation to vote emerges between the candidates’ younger supporters
• Harris and Trump have gained ground with their own coalitions
• Share of ‘double negatives’ drops significantly with change in presidential candidates
• Views of Biden have changed little since his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Nationally, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are essentially tied among registered voters in the current snapshot of the presidential race: 46% prefer Harris, 45% prefer Trump and 7% prefer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Following Biden’s exit from the race, Trump’s support among voters has remained largely steady (44% backed him in July against Biden, while 45% back him against Harris today). However, Harris’ support is 6 percentage points higher than Biden’s was in July . In addition to holding on to the support of those who backed Biden in July, Harris’ bump has largely come from those who had previously said they supported or leaned toward Kennedy.

Harris performs best among the same demographic groups as Biden. But this coalition of voters is now much more likely to say they strongly support her: In July, 43% of Biden’s supporters characterized their support as strong – today, 62% of Harris’ do.

Overall, many of the same voting patterns that were evident in the Biden-Trump matchup from July continue to be seen today. Harris fares better than Trump among younger voters, Black voters, Asian voters and voters with college degrees. By comparison, the former president does better among older voters, White voters and voters without a college degree.

But Harris performs better than Biden across many of these groups – making the race tighter than it was just a few weeks ago.

• In July, women’s presidential preferences were split: 40% backed Biden, 40% preferred Trump and 17% favored Kennedy. With Harris at the top of the ticket, 49% of women voters now support her, while 42% favor Trump and 7% back Kennedy.
• Among men, Trump draws a similar level of support as he did in the race against Biden (49% today, compared with 48% in July). But the share of men who now say they support Harris has grown (to 44% today, up from 38% last month). As a result, Trump’s 10-point lead among men has narrowed to a 5-point lead today.

Race and ethnicity

Harris has gained substantial ground over Biden’s position in July among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters. Most of this movement is attributable to declining shares of support for Kennedy. Trump performs similarly among these groups as he did in July.

• 77% of Black voters support or lean toward Harris. This compares with 64% of Black voters who said they backed Biden a few weeks ago. Trump’s support is unchanged (13% then vs. 13% today). And while 21% of Black voters supported Kennedy in July, this has dropped to 7% in the latest survey.
• Hispanic voters now favor Harris over Trump by a 17-point margin (52% to 35%). In July, Biden and Trump were tied among Hispanic voters with 36% each.
• By about two-to-one, Asian voters support Harris (62%) over Trump (28%). Trump’s support among this group is essentially unchanged since July, but the share of Asian voters backing Harris is 15 points higher than the share who backed Biden in July.
• On balance, White voters continue to back Trump (52% Trump, 41% Harris), though that margin is somewhat narrower than it was in the July matchup against Biden (50% Trump, 36% Biden).

While the age patterns present in the Harris-Trump matchup remain broadly the same as those in the Biden-Trump matchup in July, Harris performs better across age groups than Biden did last month. That improvement is somewhat more pronounced among voters under 50 than among older voters.

• Today, 57% of voters under 30 say they support Harris, while 29% support Trump and 12% prefer Kennedy. In July, 48% of these voters said they backed Biden. Trump’s support among this group is essentially unchanged. And 12% now back Kennedy, down from 22% in July.
• Voters ages 30 to 49 are now about evenly split (45% Harris, 43% Trump). This is a shift from a narrow Trump lead among this group in July.
• Voters ages 50 and older continue to tilt toward Trump (50% Trump vs. 44% Harris).

With Harris now at the top of the Democratic ticket, the race has become tighter.

Much of this is the result of shifting preferences among registered voters who, in July, said they favored Kennedy over Trump or Biden.

Among the same group of voters surveyed in July and early August, 97% of those who backed Biden a few weeks ago say they support or lean toward Harris today. Similarly, Trump holds on to 95% of those who supported him a few weeks ago.

But there has been far more movement among voters who previously expressed support for Kennedy. While Kennedy holds on to 39% of those who backed him in July, the majority of these supporters now prefer one of the two major party candidates: By about two-to-one, those voters are more likely to have moved to Harris (39%) than Trump (20%). This pattern is evident across most voting subgroups.

In July, Trump’s voters were far more likely than Biden’s voters to characterize their support for their candidate as “strong” (63% vs. 43%). But that gap is no longer present in the Harris-Trump matchup.

Today, 62% of Harris voters say they strongly support her, while about a third (32%) say they moderately support her. Trump’s voters are just about as likely to say they strongly back him today as they were in July (64% today, 63% then).

Kennedy’s voters make up a smaller share of voters today than a month ago – and just 18% of his voters say they strongly support him, similar to the 15% who said the same in July.

Across demographic groups, strong support for Harris is higher than it was for Biden

Among women voters who supported Biden in July, 45% said they did so strongly. That has grown to 65% today among women voters who support Harris.

Increased intensity of support is similar among men voters who back the Democratic candidate: In July, 42% of men voters who supported Biden said they did so strongly. This has since grown to 59% of Harris’ voters who are men.

Across racial and ethnic groups, Harris’ supporters are more likely than Biden’s were to say they back their candidates strongly.

Among White voters, 43% who supported Biden in July did so strongly. Today, Harris’ strong support among White voters sits at 64%.

A near identical share of Harris’ Black supporters (65%) characterize their support for her as strong today. This is up from the 52% of Biden’s Black supporters who strongly backed him in July. Among Harris’ Hispanic supporters, 56% support her strongly, while 45% of Asian Harris voters feel the same. Strong support for Harris among these voters is also higher than it was for Biden in July.

Across all age groups, Harris’ strength of support is higher than Biden’s was. But the shift from Biden is less pronounced among older Democratic supporters than among younger groups.

Still, older Harris voters are more likely than younger Harris voters to describe their support as strong. For instance, 51% of Harris’ voters under 50 say they strongly support her, while 71% of Harris supporters ages 50 and older characterize their support as strong.

Today, about seven-in-ten of both Trump supporters (72%) and Harris supporters (70%) say they are extremely motivated to vote.

Motivation to vote is higher in both the Democratic and Republican coalitions than it was in July .

These shifts have occurred across groups but are more pronounced among younger voters.

Today, half of voters under 30 say they are extremely motivated to vote, up 16 points since July. Motivation is up 11 points among voters ages 30 to 49 and 50 to 64, and up 6 points among those ages 65 and older.

Among the youngest voters, the increased motivation to vote is nearly all driven by shifts among Democratic supporters.

• In July, 38% of 18- to 29-year-old Trump voters said they were extremely motivated to vote. Today, a similar share of his voters (42%) report that level of motivation.
• But 18- to 29-year-old Harris supporters are far more likely to say they are extremely motivated to vote than Biden’s supporters in this age group were about a month ago. Today, 61% of Harris’ voters under 30 say this. In July, 42% of voters under 30 who supported Biden said they were extremely motivated to vote.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Donald Trump
• Election 2024
• Kamala Harris
• More Leaders
• Political & Civic Engagement

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exits, a look at who supported him in the 2024 presidential race

Many americans are confident the 2024 election will be conducted fairly, but wide partisan differences remain, joe biden, public opinion and his withdrawal from the 2024 race, amid doubts about biden’s mental sharpness, trump leads presidential race, americans’ views of government’s role: persistent divisions and areas of agreement, most popular, report materials.

• August 2024 Presidential Preference Detailed Tables
• Questionnaire

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NIH launches program to advance research led by Native American communities on substance use and pain

Effort aims to elevate Indigenous Knowledge and culture in research, to respond to the overdose crisis and address related health disparities

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched a program that will support Native American communities to lead public health research to address overdose, substance use, and pain, including related factors such as mental health and wellness. Despite the inherent strengths in Tribal communities, and driven in part by social determinants of health, Native American communities face unique health disparities related to the opioid crisis. For instance, in recent years, overdose death rates have been highest among American Indian and Alaska Native people . Research prioritized by Native communities is essential for enhancing effective, culturally grounded public health interventions and promoting positive health outcomes.

“Elevating the knowledge, expertise, and inherent strengths of Native people in research is crucial for creating sustainable solutions that can effectively promote public health and health equity,” said Nora D. Volkow, M.D., director of NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “As we look for ways to best respond to the overdose crisis across the country, it is crucial to recognize that Native American communities have the best perspective for developing prevention and therapeutic interventions consistent with their traditions and needs. This program will facilitate research that is led by Native American communities, for Native American communities.”

Totaling approximately $268 million over seven years, pending the availability of funds, the Native Collective Research Effort to Enhance Wellness (N CREW) Program will support research projects that are led directly by Tribes and organizations that serve Native American communities, and was established in direct response to priorities identified by Tribes and Native American communities.

Many Tribal Nations have developed and continue to develop innovative approaches and systems of care for community members with substance use and pain disorders. During NIH Tribal Consultations in 2018 and 2022 , Tribal leaders categorized the opioid overdose crisis as one of their highest priority issues and called for research and support to respond. They shared that Native communities must lead the science and highlighted the need for research capacity building, useful real-time data, and approaches that rely on Indigenous Knowledge and community strengths to meet the needs of Native people.

The N CREW Program focuses on:

• Supporting research prioritized by Native communities, including research elevating and integrating Indigenous Knowledge and culture
• Enhancing capacity for research led by Tribes and Native American Serving Organizations by developing and providing novel, accessible, and culturally grounded technical assistance and training, resources, and tools
• Improving access to, and quality of, data on substance use, pain, and related factors to maximize the potential for use of these data in local decision-making.

“Native American communities have been treating pain in their communities for centuries, and this program will uplift that knowledge to support research that is built around cultural strengths and priorities,” said Walter Koroshetz, M.D., director of NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). “These projects will further our collective understanding of key programs and initiatives that can effectively improve chronic pain management for Native American and other communities.”

The first phase of the program will support projects to plan, develop, and pilot community-driven research and/or data improvement projects to address substance use and pain. In this phase, NIH will also support the development of a Native Research Resource Network to provide comprehensive training, resources, and real-time support to N CREW participants.

The second phase of the program, anticipated to begin in fall 2026, will build on the work conducted in the initial phase of the program to further capacity building efforts and implement community-driven research and/or data improvements projects. Additional activities that support the overarching goals of the N CREW Program may also be identified as the program develops.

The N CREW Program is led by the NIH’s NIDA, NINDS, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), with participation from numerous other NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. The N CREW Program is funded through the NIH Helping to End Addiction Long-term Initiative (or NIH HEAL Initiative) , which is jointly managed by NIDA and NINDS. For the purposes of the N CREW Program, Native Americans include American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Projects will be awarded on a rolling basis and publicly listed .

This new program is part of work to advance the President’s Unity Agenda and the HHS Overdose Prevention Strategy .

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988  or chat at 988lifeline.org . To learn how to get support for mental health, drug or alcohol conditions, visit  FindSupport.gov . If you are ready to locate a treatment facility or provider, you can go directly to  FindTreatment.gov or call  800-662-HELP (4357) .

Helping to End Addiction Long-term® and NIH HEAL Initiative® are registered service marks of the Department of Health and Human Services.

About the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug use and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy, improve practice, and advance addiction science. For more information about NIDA and its programs, visit www.nida.nih.gov .

About the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS): NINDS is the nation’s leading funder of research on the brain and nervous system. The mission of NINDS is to seek fundamental knowledge about the brain and nervous system and to use that knowledge to reduce the burden of neurological disease. For more information about NINDS and its programs, visit www.ninds.nih.gov .

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH) : NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit https://www.nih.gov .

About substance use disorders: Substance use disorders are chronic, treatable conditions from which people can recover. In 2023, nearly 49 million people in the United States had at least one substance use disorder. Substance use disorders are defined in part by continued use of substances despite negative consequences. They are also relapsing conditions, in which periods of abstinence (not using substances) can be followed by a return to use. Stigma can make individuals with substance use disorders less likely to seek treatment. Using preferred language can help accurately report on substance use and addiction. View NIDA’s online guide.

About chronic pain: Chronic pain affects more than 50 million adults in the U.S. It may last for months, years, or a lifetime after its onset from trauma or another chronic health disorder. Multidisciplinary approaches and access to safe, effective, and quality care are essential for reducing pain and improving quality of life.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health ®

Related Articles

Most Americans don’t know that primary care physicians can prescribe addiction treatment

NIH-funded intervention did not impact opioid-related overdose death rates over evaluation period

Faster approach for starting extended-release naltrexone to treat opioid use disorder shown effective

Information Technology

Primary research articles.

• Library vs. Google
• Background Reading
• Keyword Searching
• Evaluating Sources
• Citing Sources
• Need more help?

How Can I Find Primary Research Articles?

Many of the recommended databases in this subject guide contain primary research articles (also known as empirical articles or research studies). Search in databases like ScienceDirect , MEDLINE , and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition .

Primary Research Articles: How Will I Know One When I See One?

Primary research articles  to conduct and publish an experiment or research study, an author or team of authors designs an experiment, gathers data, then analyzes the data and discusses the results of the experiment. a published experiment or research study will therefore  look  very different from other types of articles (newspaper stories, magazine articles, essays, etc.) found in our library databases. the following guidelines will help you recognize a primary research article, written by the researchers themselves and published in a scholarly journal., structure of a primary research article typically, a primary research article has the following sections:.

• The author summarizes her article
• The author discusses the general background of her research topic; often, she will present a literature review, that is, summarize what other experts have written on this particular research topic
• The author describes the study she designed and conducted
• The author presents the data she gathered during her experiment
• The author offers ideas about the importance and implications of her research findings, and speculates on future directions that similar research might take
• The author gives a References list of sources she used in her paper

The structure of the article will often be clearly shown with headings: Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion.

A primary research article will almost always contains statistics, numerical data presented in tables. Also, primary research articles are written in very formal, very technical language.

• << Previous: Resources
• Next: Research Tips >>
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2024 5:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.umgc.edu/information-technology

• Undergraduate Admission
• Student Affairs
• Events Calendar
• George W. Bush Presidential Center
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Information for Faculty & Staff

William Maxwell

Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty

Professor, Mary Jo Vaughn Rauscher Chair in Financial Investments Academic Director, The EnCap Investments & LCM Group Alternative Asset Management Center Academic Director, The Don Jackson Center for Financial Studies

PhD, Finance, George Washington University

William Maxwell is a Professor of Finance at the Cox School of Business.  He received his PhD. from the George Washington University in 1998.  He holds the Mary Jo Vaughn Rauscher Chair in Financial Investments and is the Director of the Don Jackson Center for Financial Studies and the EnCap Investments & LCM Group Alternative Asset Management Center.  He has taught at the University of Arizona, Texas Tech, Georgetown and George Washington University. Before studying for the PhD, he worked for five years specializing in mergers & acquisitions and corporate valuations.  

Dr. Maxwell teaches in the undergraduate Alternative Assets Management Program. He has been recognized for his outstanding teaching with numerous awards and was named as one of   Poets and Quants ’ 2017 Top 40 Undergraduate Business School Professors . 

Dr. Maxwell's research has focused on corporate finance and corporate bond microstructure.  His work is cited over 3,000/10,000 times ( Web of Science & Google Scholar ) .   His publications include the   Journal of Finance (5) , Journal of Financial Economics (5), Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Journal of Accounting Research (2), Journal of Law and Economics,   and   Journal of Economic Perspectives . He has published two books,   McGraw-Hill, 2011 and, McGraw-Hill, 1999.  His work has been noted in the numerous outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, Smart Money, & Bloomberg News.

Alternative Assets Management Program (undergraduate) Valuation (graduate)

FINA 5441 Alternative Assets FINA 6211 Valuation and Analysis

Publications

Most recent articles.

Transparency, Capital Commitment, and Illiquidity in Corporate Bonds, with H. Bessembinder, S. Jacobsen and K. Venkataraman,  Journal of Finance , 2018, v73i4, 1615-1661.  

Refinancing Risk and Cash Holdings, with S. Klasa & J. Harford, Journal of Finance, 2014, v69i3, 975-1012. [Lead Article]

Trading Activity and Transaction Costs in Structured Credit Products, H. Bessembinder and K. Venkataraman, Financial Analyst Journal, 2013, v69n6, 55-67.

Leveraged Financial Markets: Leveraged Loans, High Yield Bonds & Credit Default Swaps, McGraw-Hill, 2011

High Yield Bonds: Market Structure, Portfolio Management, and Credit Risk Modeling, 1999

Primary navigation menu

Search the smu website, lifelong support.