research findings and discussion example

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

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

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

What makes an effective discussion?

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

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

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

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

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

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

Questions to ask yourself:

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

How to structure a discussion

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

Writing Tips

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

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

Don’t

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

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

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

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

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

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

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

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

How To Write The Discussion Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD Cand). Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve reached the discussion chapter of your thesis or dissertation and are looking for a bit of guidance. Well, you’ve come to the right place ! In this post, we’ll unpack and demystify the typical discussion chapter in straightforward, easy to understand language, with loads of examples .

Overview: Dissertation Discussion Chapter

• What (exactly) the discussion chapter is
• What to include in your discussion chapter
• How to write up your discussion chapter
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way

What exactly is the discussion chapter?

The discussion chapter is where you interpret and explain your results within your thesis or dissertation. This contrasts with the results chapter, where you merely present and describe the analysis findings (whether qualitative or quantitative ). In the discussion chapter, you elaborate on and evaluate your research findings, and discuss the significance and implications of your results.

In this chapter, you’ll situate your research findings in terms of your research questions or hypotheses and tie them back to previous studies and literature (which you would have covered in your literature review chapter). You’ll also have a look at how relevant and/or significant your findings are to your field of research, and you’ll argue for the conclusions that you draw from your analysis. Simply put, the discussion chapter is there for you to interact with and explain your research findings in a thorough and coherent manner.

What should I include in the discussion chapter?

First things first: in some studies, the results and discussion chapter are combined into one chapter .  This depends on the type of study you conducted (i.e., the nature of the study and methodology adopted), as well as the standards set by the university.  So, check in with your university regarding their norms and expectations before getting started. In this post, we’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as this is most common.

Basically, your discussion chapter should analyse , explore the meaning and identify the importance of the data you presented in your results chapter. In the discussion chapter, you’ll give your results some form of meaning by evaluating and interpreting them. This will help answer your research questions, achieve your research aims and support your overall conclusion (s). Therefore, you discussion chapter should focus on findings that are directly connected to your research aims and questions. Don’t waste precious time and word count on findings that are not central to the purpose of your research project.

As this chapter is a reflection of your results chapter, it’s vital that you don’t report any new findings . In other words, you can’t present claims here if you didn’t present the relevant data in the results chapter first.  So, make sure that for every discussion point you raise in this chapter, you’ve covered the respective data analysis in the results chapter. If you haven’t, you’ll need to go back and adjust your results chapter accordingly.

If you’re struggling to get started, try writing down a bullet point list everything you found in your results chapter. From this, you can make a list of everything you need to cover in your discussion chapter. Also, make sure you revisit your research questions or hypotheses and incorporate the relevant discussion to address these.  This will also help you to see how you can structure your chapter logically.

Need a helping hand?

How to write the discussion chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear idea of what the discussion chapter is and what it needs to include, let’s look at how you can go about structuring this critically important chapter. Broadly speaking, there are six core components that need to be included, and these can be treated as steps in the chapter writing process.

Step 1: Restate your research problem and research questions

The first step in writing up your discussion chapter is to remind your reader of your research problem , as well as your research aim(s) and research questions . If you have hypotheses, you can also briefly mention these. This “reminder” is very important because, after reading dozens of pages, the reader may have forgotten the original point of your research or been swayed in another direction. It’s also likely that some readers skip straight to your discussion chapter from the introduction chapter , so make sure that your research aims and research questions are clear.

Step 2: Summarise your key findings

Next, you’ll want to summarise your key findings from your results chapter. This may look different for qualitative and quantitative research , where qualitative research may report on themes and relationships, whereas quantitative research may touch on correlations and causal relationships. Regardless of the methodology, in this section you need to highlight the overall key findings in relation to your research questions.

Typically, this section only requires one or two paragraphs , depending on how many research questions you have. Aim to be concise here, as you will unpack these findings in more detail later in the chapter. For now, a few lines that directly address your research questions are all that you need.

Some examples of the kind of language you’d use here include:

• The data suggest that…
• The data support/oppose the theory that…
• The analysis identifies…

These are purely examples. What you present here will be completely dependent on your original research questions, so make sure that you are led by them .

Step 3: Interpret your results

Once you’ve restated your research problem and research question(s) and briefly presented your key findings, you can unpack your findings by interpreting your results. Remember: only include what you reported in your results section – don’t introduce new information.

From a structural perspective, it can be a wise approach to follow a similar structure in this chapter as you did in your results chapter. This would help improve readability and make it easier for your reader to follow your arguments. For example, if you structured you results discussion by qualitative themes, it may make sense to do the same here.

Alternatively, you may structure this chapter by research questions, or based on an overarching theoretical framework that your study revolved around. Every study is different, so you’ll need to assess what structure works best for you.

When interpreting your results, you’ll want to assess how your findings compare to those of the existing research (from your literature review chapter). Even if your findings contrast with the existing research, you need to include these in your discussion. In fact, those contrasts are often the most interesting findings . In this case, you’d want to think about why you didn’t find what you were expecting in your data and what the significance of this contrast is.

Here are a few questions to help guide your discussion:

• How do your results relate with those of previous studies ?
• If you get results that differ from those of previous studies, why may this be the case?
• What do your results contribute to your field of research?
• What other explanations could there be for your findings?

When interpreting your findings, be careful not to draw conclusions that aren’t substantiated . Every claim you make needs to be backed up with evidence or findings from the data (and that data needs to be presented in the previous chapter – results). This can look different for different studies; qualitative data may require quotes as evidence, whereas quantitative data would use statistical methods and tests. Whatever the case, every claim you make needs to be strongly backed up.

Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations of your study

The fourth step in writing up your discussion chapter is to acknowledge the limitations of the study. These limitations can cover any part of your study , from the scope or theoretical basis to the analysis method(s) or sample. For example, you may find that you collected data from a very small sample with unique characteristics, which would mean that you are unable to generalise your results to the broader population.

For some students, discussing the limitations of their work can feel a little bit self-defeating . This is a misconception, as a core indicator of high-quality research is its ability to accurately identify its weaknesses. In other words, accurately stating the limitations of your work is a strength, not a weakness . All that said, be careful not to undermine your own research. Tell the reader what limitations exist and what improvements could be made, but also remind them of the value of your study despite its limitations.

Step 5: Make recommendations for implementation and future research

Now that you’ve unpacked your findings and acknowledge the limitations thereof, the next thing you’ll need to do is reflect on your study in terms of two factors:

• The practical application of your findings
• Suggestions for future research

The first thing to discuss is how your findings can be used in the real world – in other words, what contribution can they make to the field or industry? Where are these contributions applicable, how and why? For example, if your research is on communication in health settings, in what ways can your findings be applied to the context of a hospital or medical clinic? Make sure that you spell this out for your reader in practical terms, but also be realistic and make sure that any applications are feasible.

The next discussion point is the opportunity for future research . In other words, how can other studies build on what you’ve found and also improve the findings by overcoming some of the limitations in your study (which you discussed a little earlier). In doing this, you’ll want to investigate whether your results fit in with findings of previous research, and if not, why this may be the case. For example, are there any factors that you didn’t consider in your study? What future research can be done to remedy this? When you write up your suggestions, make sure that you don’t just say that more research is needed on the topic, also comment on how the research can build on your study.

Step 6: Provide a concluding summary

Finally, you’ve reached your final stretch. In this section, you’ll want to provide a brief recap of the key findings – in other words, the findings that directly address your research questions . Basically, your conclusion should tell the reader what your study has found, and what they need to take away from reading your report.

When writing up your concluding summary, bear in mind that some readers may skip straight to this section from the beginning of the chapter.  So, make sure that this section flows well from and has a strong connection to the opening section of the chapter.

Tips and tricks for an A-grade discussion chapter

Now that you know what the discussion chapter is , what to include and exclude , and how to structure it , here are some tips and suggestions to help you craft a quality discussion chapter.

• When you write up your discussion chapter, make sure that you keep it consistent with your introduction chapter , as some readers will skip from the introduction chapter directly to the discussion chapter. Your discussion should use the same tense as your introduction, and it should also make use of the same key terms.
• Don’t make assumptions about your readers. As a writer, you have hands-on experience with the data and so it can be easy to present it in an over-simplified manner. Make sure that you spell out your findings and interpretations for the intelligent layman.
• Have a look at other theses and dissertations from your institution, especially the discussion sections. This will help you to understand the standards and conventions of your university, and you’ll also get a good idea of how others have structured their discussion chapters. You can also check out our chapter template .
• Avoid using absolute terms such as “These results prove that…”, rather make use of terms such as “suggest” or “indicate”, where you could say, “These results suggest that…” or “These results indicate…”. It is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something (due to a variety of resource constraints), so be humble in your language.
• Use well-structured and consistently formatted headings to ensure that your reader can easily navigate between sections, and so that your chapter flows logically and coherently.

If you have any questions or thoughts regarding this post, feel free to leave a comment below. Also, if you’re looking for one-on-one help with your discussion chapter (or thesis in general), consider booking a free consultation with one of our highly experienced Grad Coaches to discuss how we can help you.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

34 Comments

Thank you this is helpful!

This is very helpful to me… Thanks a lot for sharing this with us 😊

This has been very helpful indeed. Thank you.

This is actually really helpful, I just stumbled upon it. Very happy that I found it, thank you.

Me too! I was kinda lost on how to approach my discussion chapter. How helpful! Thanks a lot!

This is really good and explicit. Thanks

Thank you, this blog has been such a help.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

Dear sir/madame

Thanks a lot for this helpful blog. Really, it supported me in writing my discussion chapter while I was totally unaware about its structure and method of writing.

With regards

Syed Firoz Ahmad PhD, Research Scholar

I agree so much. This blog was god sent. It assisted me so much while I was totally clueless about the context and the know-how. Now I am fully aware of what I am to do and how I am to do it.

Thanks! This is helpful!

thanks alot for this informative website

Dear Sir/Madam,

Truly, your article was much benefited when i structured my discussion chapter.

Thank you very much!!!

This is helpful for me in writing my research discussion component. I have to copy this text on Microsoft word cause of my weakness that I cannot be able to read the text on screen a long time. So many thanks for this articles.

This was helpful

Thanks Jenna, well explained.

Thank you! This is super helpful.

Thanks very much. I have appreciated the six steps on writing the Discussion chapter which are (i) Restating the research problem and questions (ii) Summarising the key findings (iii) Interpreting the results linked to relating to previous results in positive and negative ways; explaining whay different or same and contribution to field of research and expalnation of findings (iv) Acknowledgeing limitations (v) Recommendations for implementation and future resaerch and finally (vi) Providing a conscluding summary

My two questions are: 1. On step 1 and 2 can it be the overall or you restate and sumamrise on each findings based on the reaerch question? 2. On 4 and 5 do you do the acknowlledgement , recommendations on each research finding or overall. This is not clear from your expalanattion.

Please respond.

This post is very useful. I’m wondering whether practical implications must be introduced in the Discussion section or in the Conclusion section?

Sigh, I never knew a 20 min video could have literally save my life like this. I found this at the right time!!!! Everything I need to know in one video thanks a mil ! OMGG and that 6 step!!!!!! was the cherry on top the cake!!!!!!!!!

Thanks alot.., I have gained much

This piece is very helpful on how to go about my discussion section. I can always recommend GradCoach research guides for colleagues.

Many thanks for this resource. It has been very helpful to me. I was finding it hard to even write the first sentence. Much appreciated.

Thanks so much. Very helpful to know what is included in the discussion section

this was a very helpful and useful information

This is very helpful. Very very helpful. Thanks for sharing this online!

it is very helpfull article, and i will recommend it to my fellow students. Thank you.

Superlative! More grease to your elbows.

Powerful, thank you for sharing.

Wow! Just wow! God bless the day I stumbled upon you guys’ YouTube videos! It’s been truly life changing and anxiety about my report that is due in less than a month has subsided significantly!

Simplified explanation. Well done.

The presentation is enlightening. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the support and guidance

This has been a great help to me and thank you do much

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

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

Updated on September 15, 2023

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

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

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

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

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

What is it?

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

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

Why is it necessary?

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

Adds context for your results

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

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

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

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

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

Summary of key findings

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

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

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

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

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

State clearly and concisely

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

Interpretation of results

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

Analyze and interpret your findings

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

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

Unexpected or contradictory results

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

Context and comparison with previous work

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

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

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

How to divide this section into subsections

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

Limitations

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

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

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

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

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

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

Implications and significance

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

Restate your hypothesis

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

How was it proven or disproven?

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

How your results contribute to the literature

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

Future implications of your research

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

Sample discussion section

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to make your discussion flow naturally

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

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

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

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

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explains how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Annesley, Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Peacock, Matthew. “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (December 2002): 479-497.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
• Presents the underlying meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research;
• Highlights the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the field of study;
• Presents how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described; and,
• Engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results and why they are important. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings presented in the results section.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study could not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [as opposed to offering suggestions in the conclusion of your paper]. Although your study can offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight hidden issues that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results, to support the significance of a finding, and/or to place a finding within a particular context. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74 (June 2013): 1599-1602; Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012; Summary: Using it Wisely. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Over-Interpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

MacCoun, Robert J. "Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (February 1998): 259-287; Ward, Paulet al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Expertise . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.

Azar, Beth. "Discussing Your Findings."  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006).

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand your discussion of the results in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your effort to interpret the data in relation to the research problem.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Mastering Your Dissertation pp 105–115 Cite as

How Do I Write the Discussion Chapter?

Reflecting on and Comparing Your Data, Recognising the Strengths and Limitations

• Sue Reeves   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3017-0559 3 &
• Bartek Buczkowski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-3664 4  
• First Online: 19 October 2023

303 Accesses

The Discussion chapter brings an opportunity to write an academic argument that contains a detailed critical evaluation and analysis of your research findings. This chapter addresses the purpose and critical nature of the discussion, contains a guide to selecting key results to discuss, and details how best to structure the discussion with subsections and paragraphs. We also present a list of points to do and avoid when writing the discussion together with a Discussion chapter checklist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Braun V, Clarke V (2013) Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications, London

Google Scholar  

McGregor SLT (2018) Understanding and evaluating research: a critical guide. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA

Book   Google Scholar  

PLOS (2023) Author resources. How to write discussions and conclusions. Accessed Mar 3, 2023, from https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-conclusions/ . Accessed 3 Mar 2023

Further Reading

Cottrell S (2017) Critical thinking skills: effective analysis, argument and reflection, 3rd edn. Palgrave, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Roehampton, London, UK

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Bartek Buczkowski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Reeves, S., Buczkowski, B. (2023). How Do I Write the Discussion Chapter?. In: Mastering Your Dissertation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_9

Published : 19 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41910-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41911-9

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Page Contents

• 1.1 Research Answer
• 1.2 Key Findings
• 1.3 Interpretations
• 1.4 Comparison to Other Studies
• 1.5 Acknowledgement of Limitations
• 1.6 Recommendations for Future Research
• 2 Six Key Components of the Discussion Section – An Example
• 3 Questions to Help You Interpret Your Results
• 4 Reflective Exercise – Interpreting Your Results
• 5 Common Structure of the Discussion Section
• 6.1 Tip 1 – Include Specific Limitations
• 6.2 Tip 2 – Conclude with Your Contributions
• 6.3 Tip 3 – Use Signal Phrases
• 6.4 Tip 4 – Choose Verbs Carefully
• 8 Conclusion

Writing the Discussion

The Discussion section is widely recognized as the most challenging part of the research article to write. But it’s also the most rewarding section in many ways because it’s where you get to say what your findings mean and why they matter. It’s where you get to talk about your own contributions to the research. Before you start writing your discussion, think critically about your data so that you can share your research story with your reader.

The Discussion section of a research article answers,

The six main components of the discussion section that will help you answer these questions for your reader are

The following list provides a brief overview of each of these components. The Common Structure of the Discussion section provides more details about how these components are integrated and developed within the paragraphs of the Discussion.

Research Answer

Start your Discussion by explicitly answering your research question. If you had a hypothesis, indicate whether or not it was supported. In some cases, you may wish to remind your reader of the research question before providing your research answer.

Key Findings

Provide an overview of your major findings before offering your specific interpretations and comparisons to other studies.

Interpretations

Explain what your results mean and make any claims based on your results. Ensure that you ground all your claims in evidence

Comparison to Other Studies

Compare your findings to those of other studies. Within the Discussion, interpretations and comparisons to other studies are often integrated. As you interpret your findings, you’ll indicate how they compare to existing research, and what the similarities or differences suggest. You’ll repeat this pattern as you move through your findings.

Acknowledgement of Limitations

Highlight the specific limitations of your study to demonstrate your awareness of potential gaps, acknowledge methodological drawbacks, and anticipate potential questions or criticism.

Recommendations for Future Research

Indicate what future researchers can do to build upon your research findings and take the research further.

Six Key Components of the Discussion Section – An Example

This video illustrates the six key components of the discussion section in a scientific research article by examining excerpts from a fictional research article about varroa mites in honeybee colonies.

NOTE: For educational purposes, we’ve created fictional excerpts that resemble passages from scientific research articles. The fictional examples are intended to illustrate writing techniques and are not designed to teach scientific content. Please note that the scientific content and data in this video is fictional.

[Background sounds of bees buzzing and birds chirping]

To illustrate the six key components of the discussion section, we’ll examine excerpts from a fictional scientific research article about varroa mites in honeybee colonies.

The writer starts their discussion with an ANSWER to their RESEARCH QUESTION by noting which two natural chemical treatments are effective. [A laptop displays the following voiceover text on screen.] They state, “Our findings indicate that formic acid strips and oxalic acid trickling are effective natural chemical treatments for reducing the presence of varroa mites in honeybee colonies.”

Next, the writer provides a summary of their KEY FINDINGS by focusing on which of the two treatments are most effective: [A laptop displays the following voiceover text on screen.] “Formic acid treatment was the most effective treatment for reducing the presence of varroa mites in honeybee colonies. This finding suggests that this treatment is an effective option for Ontario beekeepers.”

After providing the key findings, the writer begins to INTERPRET their INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS. The writer provides explanations for the similarities and differences that they observe. [A laptop displays the following voiceover text on screen.] For example, they note that, “Although oxalic acid is stronger than formic acid, formic acid strips were 14% more effective than oxalic acid trickling in reducing varroa mite populations. One reason for this observed difference may be that formic acid can penetrate the wax of the brood chamber whereas oxalic acid cannot.”

The writer also COMPARES their findings to OTHER STUDIES. They state, “Our findings with respect to natural chemical treatments are similar to those of Buzz et al. (2021). Buzz et al. (2021) compared the efficacy of sucrocide spray treatment to formic acid treatment and found that formic acid treatment was more effective for reducing mite populations. These similarities suggest that formic acid treatments are an effective option that beekeepers can use to protect their colonies.”

Note here that the writer moves beyond stating that their research is similar to that of others. [Laptop screen showing the text “These similarities suggest that formic acid treatments are an effective option that beekeepers can use to protect their colonies.”] They also indicate what these similarities suggest about the results.

In addition to highlighting what they found, the writer also ACKNOWLEDGES their LIMITATIONS. [A laptop displays the following voiceover text on screen.] They note, “As our study took place during a single season, we did not have the opportunity to determine how temperature impacts treatment efficacy.”

[Text on screen “SUGGEST FUTURE RESEARCH.] The writer concludes by indicating how this research can be addressed by future researchers, noting, “Further research is needed to determine how seasonal temperature impacts the efficacy of treatment types.”

Questions to Help You Interpret Your Results

Every claim that you make in your Discussion section must be grounded in evidence. Ensure that you understand your results thoroughly and present them effectively. These are some questions that you can ask yourself to determine what your findings mean and what you plan to write about them:

Examine the results from your study and consider how they relate to your research question or your hypotheses if you’re doing hypothesis-driven research. Which results did you expect? Which results did you not expect?

Think about how your results compare to the literature that you explored for your introduction, research proposal, or literature reviews. How do your results compare to existing studies? What are the similarities? What are the differences?

Although indicating how your research is similar to or different from existing research is important, you need to move beyond these statements to provide your own interpretations as well. Consider what these similarities and differences suggest. What do similarities between your results and those of other researchers mean? What might be some reasons for any differences that you’ve observed? Are there any interesting implications to note?

These questions will help you approach your data with a critical eye and map out the possible interpretations. Consider the following advice from Joshua Schimel’s Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded (2012).

“What might that shoulder on the spectrum mean? If that nonsignificant treatment effect were real, what would that say about your system? Is that outlier a flag for something you hadn’t thought about but may be important? Overinterpret your data wildly, and consider what they might mean at those farthest fringes. Explore the possibilities and develop the story expansively. Then, take Occam’s razor and slash away to find the simple core” (Schimel 2012, p. 12).

As Schimel emphasizes in this passage, interpreting your data critically is key to telling the story of your research findings. A starting place is to consider all the possibilities for what your research could mean to ensure that you don’t miss possible interpretations. Once you’ve completed this exercise, consider the principle of Occam’s razor – the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the best one – to ensure that you’re not over interpreting your data. Once you start writing, focus your Discussion on the interpretations that you can provide specific evidence to support.

Reflective Exercise – Interpreting Your Results

The following “Interpreting Your Results – Worksheet” is a tool designed to guide your critical reflection and writing process. Use the table on this worksheet to help you interpret your results and discuss your research findings.  

NOTE: You can view this worksheet online, but you can also download it below as an accessible screen reader document.

Download PDF (Interpreting Your Results – Worksheet)

This table is divided into four columns:

• Column One: Describe a result from your study.
• Column Two: Explain what your result indicates in a direct way. In other words, what would experts who look at this result logically conclude from it?
• Column Three: Consider what claims you could make about the result. In other words, what are your specific thoughts and interpretations about what the data could mean?
• Column Four: Note any questions that you still have about your result. These could be questions that you could answer by revisiting the literature in your field, or they could be questions that future researchers should consider.

Common Structure of the Discussion Section

In the Discussion section, writers typically move from a specific statement of research findings to the broad implications of the work. This movement is the opposite trajectory of what you typically see in an Introduction section, where the image of a funnel often represents how the writer will move from the broad area of research to the narrow, specific research question. The opposite image – that of a pyramid – is useful for the Discussion section. However, a Discussion section is not simply a backwards Introduction. In the Discussion, writers start with the answer to their specific research question and then move outward to discuss the broad implications of their work.

The following structure is a common one that you will find in the Discussion section of many research articles in the sciences.

Opening Paragraph: Provide your research answer and state your key findings.

Body Paragraphs: Offer your interpretations and comparisons to other studies. Carefully consider the order in which you present your body paragraphs. Often, writers will start with the findings that are most central to the research question and then move into findings that are less critical.

There are two main ways to organize body paragraphs in the Discussion section.

Image description: Two images showing different structures for body paragraphs. The first image [Option 1] has a large box with the text “My result indicates…” and a smaller box beneath with text “… and this … is how my result compares to other literature.” The second image [Option 2] has a large box with the text “The existing literature shows…” and a smaller box beneath with text “… and this … is how my result fits into the literature.”

Option 1 is to discuss the meaning of a result and then compare it to the existing literature. Option 2 is to write about the relevant literature and then discuss how your results fit in. Both options are valid, and you’ll see both in published research articles.

However, option 1, where you start the paragraph with your own findings, more effectively highlights your research contributions. The Discussion section is the part of your article where you get to highlight what your results mean and why your findings are important. Option 2 makes other researchers’ work the primary focus of your Discussion, and then you risk burying your own contributions, and your Discussion section could read like a literature review. It is critical to foreground your own research contributions so that readers know why your research is important.

Concluding Paragraph: Provide your acknowledgment of limitations and recommendations for future research . Note the broader implications of your study by returning to the major topic that you introduced in your opening paragraph of the research article.

Note: Sometimes the concluding paragraph of the Discussion will appear under a separate “Conclusion” heading. A conclusion notes the contribution of the study to the field and indicates what researchers should explore next. When you’re reading articles in your target journal, take note of whether these journals include a separate Conclusion section.

Writing Tips

Below are four writing tips for writing your Discussion section:

Tip 1 – Include Specific Limitations

When you’re writing your Discussion section, you may feel hesitant to include limitations. You may worry that by mentioning a limitation, you’ve brought it to the reader’s attention when the reader wouldn’t have thought of it otherwise. You may worry that by drawing attention to a limitation, you’re making your research look weak.

While some readers may not notice your limitations until you point them out, overall, academics are trained to read critically. Academics are often thinking about potential limitations as part of their critical reading practice.

While you want to indicate how your research contributes to the field, you want to be cautious about overestimating or overstating your research findings. Because readers are trained to read critically, you’ll want to be thinking about potential objections or potential questions about your work.

Write these potential objections or questions down, consider which ones are most relevant, and acknowledge them as part of writing your limitations. Acknowledging limitations qualifies your contribution in a meaningful way and strengthens your writing.

Tip 2 – Conclude with Your Contributions

In the final paragraph of your Discussion section, reiterate your major contributions to the field of research that you introduced in your introduction section. Ending with a statement of your contributions is stronger than ending with a description of your limitations. Although stating limitations is important, you also want to ensure that your reader knows why your research matters and how it contributes to the field. Information that you place at the end of a section creates emphasis. This is the information that the reader is left with, so end on a strong note. 

Tip 3 – Use Signal Phrases

Throughout your Discussion, use signal phrases to highlight your key components.

Here are a couple of examples of signal phrases that you can use. “Our findings indicate that” is a simple phrase that you can use to provide your answer to the research question. “One limitation of this study is” is a direct way that you can acknowledge your limitations. These phrases are easy for your reader to spot and also easy for reviewers and editors to see.

When you’re reading other research articles, take a look at where and how writers are signalling their key components so that you can get a sense what techniques work well for you as a reader.

Tip 4 – Choose Verbs Carefully

In the Discussion section, choose verbs that accurately reflect your level of certainty about your findings. In research writing, you’ll often see verbs like “suggests,” “indicates,” and “shows.” You’ll rarely see the verb “proves” because of the extreme level of certainty associated with this word.

Within the sciences, you’re working within a tradition where you’re incrementally building upon the findings of others, and within this tradition, it can be perceived as arrogant at best or actively dangerous at worst to overstate your research findings, particularly if you’re making claims that your data don’t support.

Modal verbs like “can” and “may” qualify our level of certainty. Outside of academia, modal verbs can sometimes be viewed negatively because they can be seen to undermine the force of our statements or make our claims seem uncertain or weak. However, within research writing, modal verbs are more acceptable because we’re being cautious.

It’s important to be cautious because people may make major policy decisions or undertake particular treatment plans because of your research, so choose verbs that accurately reflect your certainty and consider that using modal verbs to qualify your level of certainty can help you advance ideas carefully while acknowledging a continued need for research. However, keep in mind that modal verbs can also be overused, so think carefully before you use one. If your findings are novel, don’t let a modal verb detract from that.

In the Discussion section, choose your verbs carefully and revise if necessary. Word choice matters.

In some disciplines within the sciences, Results and Discussion sections are combined into a single section. For example, combined Results and Discussion sections are common in research articles in engineering journals. Combined sections are also common in shorter pieces of writing and more visual mediums, such as scientific posters.

Scientists who carry out modeling and simulations will often combine their Results and Discussion sections. This approach allows them to tell a more cohesive story as they can discuss the significance of each model or simulation right after presenting the results.

If you’re opting to combine your Results and Discussion section, consider using subheadings throughout the section to make it more navigable for your reader. A combined section will often still move from presenting results at the beginning to interpreting results at the end.

When you’re investigating your target journal, explore whether writers typically combine their Results and Discussion section. If you see instances of both separate and combined sections, consider which approach will allow you to tell a cohesive story about your research while also clearly differentiating between the results of the research and your interpretations of those results.

There are many ways to approach writing the Discussion section for a mixed-methods study. Analyzing examples of mixed methods research articles from your field is a good starting place for approaching this writing task.

If you’ve conducted a mixed-methods study and have both quantitative and qualitative data, the Discussion can be a good place to provide an integrated interpretation of any relationships between both data sets. For example, you could use the following approach in a paragraph:

1) Provide a topic sentence that introduces the subject of the paragraph.

2) Discuss a quantitative result and consider comparing it to any relevant literature.

3) Discuss a qualitative result and consider comparing it to any relevant literature.

4) Explain what the quantitative and qualitative results mean when we consider them together.

Our findings show that new beekeepers in Ontario have limited familiarity with using formic acid strips to control varroa mites. In response to our survey question of whether they had applied formic acid strips to their colonies, 70% of new beekeepers noted they had used this method within the past two years, indicating that the treatment method itself is widely known. However, in our interviews, new beekeepers noted that although they had applied formic acid strips, they had received little education and training in how to do so successfully, and the method consequently was not effective in controlling the varroa mite population of their colonies. These findings suggest that new beekeepers lack a developed understanding of how to apply formic acid strips effectively despite their widespread awareness of this treatment method and willingness to use it on their colonies.

For additional examples of Discussion paragraphs that integrate quantitative and qualitative findings, see Bronstein and Kovacs (2013) .

Now that you’ve identified the key components of the Discussion section, you can fill out the Discussion page of your research article map , Next, you’re ready to write your abstract and title.

The content of this page was created by Dr. Jodie Salter and Dr. Sarah Gibbons.

About this website

Generate accurate APA citations for free

• Knowledge Base
• APA Style 7th edition
• How to write an APA results section

Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples

Published on December 21, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on January 17, 2024.

The results section of a quantitative research paper is where you summarize your data and report the findings of any relevant statistical analyses.

The APA manual provides rigorous guidelines for what to report in quantitative research papers in the fields of psychology, education, and other social sciences.

Use these standards to answer your research questions and report your data analyses in a complete and transparent way.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What goes in your results section, introduce your data, summarize your data, report statistical results, presenting numbers effectively, what doesn’t belong in your results section, frequently asked questions about results in apa.

In APA style, the results section includes preliminary information about the participants and data, descriptive and inferential statistics, and the results of any exploratory analyses.

Include these in your results section:

• Participant flow and recruitment period. Report the number of participants at every stage of the study, as well as the dates when recruitment took place.
• Missing data . Identify the proportion of data that wasn’t included in your final analysis and state the reasons.
• Any adverse events. Make sure to report any unexpected events or side effects (for clinical studies).
• Descriptive statistics . Summarize the primary and secondary outcomes of the study.
• Inferential statistics , including confidence intervals and effect sizes. Address the primary and secondary research questions by reporting the detailed results of your main analyses.
• Results of subgroup or exploratory analyses, if applicable. Place detailed results in supplementary materials.

Write up the results in the past tense because you’re describing the outcomes of a completed research study.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Before diving into your research findings, first describe the flow of participants at every stage of your study and whether any data were excluded from the final analysis.

Participant flow and recruitment period

It’s necessary to report any attrition, which is the decline in participants at every sequential stage of a study. That’s because an uneven number of participants across groups sometimes threatens internal validity and makes it difficult to compare groups. Be sure to also state all reasons for attrition.

If your study has multiple stages (e.g., pre-test, intervention, and post-test) and groups (e.g., experimental and control groups), a flow chart is the best way to report the number of participants in each group per stage and reasons for attrition.

Also report the dates for when you recruited participants or performed follow-up sessions.

Missing data

Another key issue is the completeness of your dataset. It’s necessary to report both the amount and reasons for data that was missing or excluded.

Data can become unusable due to equipment malfunctions, improper storage, unexpected events, participant ineligibility, and so on. For each case, state the reason why the data were unusable.

Some data points may be removed from the final analysis because they are outliers—but you must be able to justify how you decided what to exclude.

If you applied any techniques for overcoming or compensating for lost data, report those as well.

Adverse events

For clinical studies, report all events with serious consequences or any side effects that occured.

Descriptive statistics summarize your data for the reader. Present descriptive statistics for each primary, secondary, and subgroup analysis.

Don’t provide formulas or citations for commonly used statistics (e.g., standard deviation) – but do provide them for new or rare equations.

Descriptive statistics

The exact descriptive statistics that you report depends on the types of data in your study. Categorical variables can be reported using proportions, while quantitative data can be reported using means and standard deviations . For a large set of numbers, a table is the most effective presentation format.

Include sample sizes (overall and for each group) as well as appropriate measures of central tendency and variability for the outcomes in your results section. For every point estimate , add a clearly labelled measure of variability as well.

Be sure to note how you combined data to come up with variables of interest. For every variable of interest, explain how you operationalized it.

According to APA journal standards, it’s necessary to report all relevant hypothesis tests performed, estimates of effect sizes, and confidence intervals.

When reporting statistical results, you should first address primary research questions before moving onto secondary research questions and any exploratory or subgroup analyses.

Present the results of tests in the order that you performed them—report the outcomes of main tests before post-hoc tests, for example. Don’t leave out any relevant results, even if they don’t support your hypothesis.

Inferential statistics

For each statistical test performed, first restate the hypothesis , then state whether your hypothesis was supported and provide the outcomes that led you to that conclusion.

Report the following for each hypothesis test:

• the test statistic value,
• the degrees of freedom ,
• the exact p- value (unless it is less than 0.001),
• the magnitude and direction of the effect.

When reporting complex data analyses, such as factor analysis or multivariate analysis, present the models estimated in detail, and state the statistical software used. Make sure to report any violations of statistical assumptions or problems with estimation.

Effect sizes and confidence intervals

For each hypothesis test performed, you should present confidence intervals and estimates of effect sizes .

Confidence intervals are useful for showing the variability around point estimates. They should be included whenever you report population parameter estimates.

Effect sizes indicate how impactful the outcomes of a study are. But since they are estimates, it’s recommended that you also provide confidence intervals of effect sizes.

Subgroup or exploratory analyses

Briefly report the results of any other planned or exploratory analyses you performed. These may include subgroup analyses as well.

Subgroup analyses come with a high chance of false positive results, because performing a large number of comparison or correlation tests increases the chances of finding significant results.

If you find significant results in these analyses, make sure to appropriately report them as exploratory (rather than confirmatory) results to avoid overstating their importance.

While these analyses can be reported in less detail in the main text, you can provide the full analyses in supplementary materials.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

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

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

To effectively present numbers, use a mix of text, tables , and figures where appropriate:

• To present three or fewer numbers, try a sentence ,
• To present between 4 and 20 numbers, try a table ,
• To present more than 20 numbers, try a figure .

Since these are general guidelines, use your own judgment and feedback from others for effective presentation of numbers.

Tables and figures should be numbered and have titles, along with relevant notes. Make sure to present data only once throughout the paper and refer to any tables and figures in the text.

Formatting statistics and numbers

It’s important to follow capitalization , italicization, and abbreviation rules when referring to statistics in your paper. There are specific format guidelines for reporting statistics in APA , as well as general rules about writing numbers .

If you are unsure of how to present specific symbols, look up the detailed APA guidelines or other papers in your field.

It’s important to provide a complete picture of your data analyses and outcomes in a concise way. For that reason, raw data and any interpretations of your results are not included in the results section.

It’s rarely appropriate to include raw data in your results section. Instead, you should always save the raw data securely and make them available and accessible to any other researchers who request them.

Making scientific research available to others is a key part of academic integrity and open science.

Interpretation or discussion of results

This belongs in your discussion section. Your results section is where you objectively report all relevant findings and leave them open for interpretation by readers.

While you should state whether the findings of statistical tests lend support to your hypotheses, refrain from forming conclusions to your research questions in the results section.

Explanation of how statistics tests work

For the sake of concise writing, you can safely assume that readers of your paper have professional knowledge of how statistical inferences work.

In an APA results section , you should generally report the following:

• Participant flow and recruitment period.
• Missing data and any adverse events.
• Descriptive statistics about your samples.
• Inferential statistics , including confidence intervals and effect sizes.
• Results of any subgroup or exploratory analyses, if applicable.

According to the APA guidelines, you should report enough detail on inferential statistics so that your readers understand your analyses.

• the test statistic value
• the degrees of freedom
• the exact p value (unless it is less than 0.001)
• the magnitude and direction of the effect

You should also present confidence intervals and estimates of effect sizes where relevant.

In APA style, statistics can be presented in the main text or as tables or figures . To decide how to present numbers, you can follow APA guidelines:

• To present three or fewer numbers, try a sentence,
• To present between 4 and 20 numbers, try a table,
• To present more than 20 numbers, try a figure.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

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.

Bhandari, P. (2024, January 17). Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 17, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/results-section/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, how to write an apa methods section, how to format tables and figures in apa style, reporting statistics in apa style | guidelines & examples, scribbr apa citation checker.

An innovative new tool that checks your APA citations with AI software. Say goodbye to inaccurate citations!

Library Guides

Dissertations 5: findings, analysis and discussion: home.

• Results/Findings

Alternative Structures

The time has come to show and discuss the findings of your research. How to structure this part of your dissertation? 

Dissertations can have different structures, as you can see in the dissertation  structure  guide.

Dissertations organised by sections

Many dissertations are organised by sections. In this case, we suggest three options. Note that, if within your course you have been instructed to use a specific structure, you should do that. Also note that sometimes there is considerable freedom on the structure, so you can come up with other structures too. 

A) More common for scientific dissertations and quantitative methods:

- Results chapter 

- Discussion chapter

Example: 

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology
• (Recommendations)

if you write a scientific dissertation, or anyway using quantitative methods, you will have some  objective  results that you will present in the Results chapter. You will then interpret the results in the Discussion chapter.  

B) More common for qualitative methods

- Analysis chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic subheadings.

- Discussion chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic subheadings.

• Case study of Company X (fashion brand) environmental strategies 
• Successful elements
• Lessons learnt
• Criticisms of Company X environmental strategies 
• Possible alternatives

C) More common for qualitative methods

- Analysis and discussion chapter. This can have more descriptive/thematic titles.

• Case study of Company X (fashion brand) environmental strategies 

If your dissertation uses qualitative methods, it is harder to identify and report objective data. Instead, it may be more productive and meaningful to present the findings in the same sections where you also analyse, and possibly discuss, them. You will probably have different sections dealing with different themes. The different themes can be subheadings of the Analysis and Discussion (together or separate) chapter(s). 

Thematic dissertations

If the structure of your dissertation is thematic ,  you will have several chapters analysing and discussing the issues raised by your research. The chapters will have descriptive/thematic titles. 

• Background on the conflict in Yemen (2004-present day)
• Classification of the conflict in international law  
• International law violations
• Options for enforcement of international law
• Next: Results/Findings >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 2:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/c.php?g=696975

CONNECT WITH US

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

What is the research paper Results section and what does it do?

The Results section of a scientific research paper represents the core findings of a study derived from the methods applied to gather and analyze information. It presents these findings in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation from the author, setting up the reader for later interpretation and evaluation in the Discussion section. A major purpose of the Results section is to break down the data into sentences that show its significance to the research question(s).

The Results section appears third in the section sequence in most scientific papers. It follows the presentation of the Methods and Materials and is presented before the Discussion section —although the Results and Discussion are presented together in many journals. This section answers the basic question “What did you find in your research?”

What is included in the Results section?

The Results section should include the findings of your study and ONLY the findings of your study. The findings include:

• Data presented in tables, charts, graphs, and other figures (may be placed into the text or on separate pages at the end of the manuscript)
• A contextual analysis of this data explaining its meaning in sentence form
• All data that corresponds to the central research question(s)
• All secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

If the scope of the study is broad, or if you studied a variety of variables, or if the methodology used yields a wide range of different results, the author should present only those results that are most relevant to the research question stated in the Introduction section .

As a general rule, any information that does not present the direct findings or outcome of the study should be left out of this section. Unless the journal requests that authors combine the Results and Discussion sections, explanations and interpretations should be omitted from the Results.

How are the results organized?

The best way to organize your Results section is “logically.” One logical and clear method of organizing research results is to provide them alongside the research questions—within each research question, present the type of data that addresses that research question.

Let’s look at an example. Your research question is based on a survey among patients who were treated at a hospital and received postoperative care. Let’s say your first research question is:

“What do hospital patients over age 55 think about postoperative care?”

This can actually be represented as a heading within your Results section, though it might be presented as a statement rather than a question:

Attitudes towards postoperative care in patients over the age of 55

Now present the results that address this specific research question first. In this case, perhaps a table illustrating data from a survey. Likert items can be included in this example. Tables can also present standard deviations, probabilities, correlation matrices, etc.

Following this, present a content analysis, in words, of one end of the spectrum of the survey or data table. In our example case, start with the POSITIVE survey responses regarding postoperative care, using descriptive phrases. For example:

“Sixty-five percent of patients over 55 responded positively to the question “ Are you satisfied with your hospital’s postoperative care ?” (Fig. 2)

Include other results such as subcategory analyses. The amount of textual description used will depend on how much interpretation of tables and figures is necessary and how many examples the reader needs in order to understand the significance of your research findings.

Next, present a content analysis of another part of the spectrum of the same research question, perhaps the NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL responses to the survey. For instance:

  “As Figure 1 shows, 15 out of 60 patients in Group A responded negatively to Question 2.”

After you have assessed the data in one figure and explained it sufficiently, move on to your next research question. For example:

  “How does patient satisfaction correspond to in-hospital improvements made to postoperative care?”

This kind of data may be presented through a figure or set of figures (for instance, a paired T-test table).

Explain the data you present, here in a table, with a concise content analysis:

“The p-value for the comparison between the before and after groups of patients was .03% (Fig. 2), indicating that the greater the dissatisfaction among patients, the more frequent the improvements that were made to postoperative care.”

Let’s examine another example of a Results section from a study on plant tolerance to heavy metal stress . In the Introduction section, the aims of the study are presented as “determining the physiological and morphological responses of Allium cepa L. towards increased cadmium toxicity” and “evaluating its potential to accumulate the metal and its associated environmental consequences.” The Results section presents data showing how these aims are achieved in tables alongside a content analysis, beginning with an overview of the findings:

“Cadmium caused inhibition of root and leave elongation, with increasing effects at higher exposure doses (Fig. 1a-c).”

The figure containing this data is cited in parentheses. Note that this author has combined three graphs into one single figure. Separating the data into separate graphs focusing on specific aspects makes it easier for the reader to assess the findings, and consolidating this information into one figure saves space and makes it easy to locate the most relevant results.

Following this overall summary, the relevant data in the tables is broken down into greater detail in text form in the Results section.

• “Results on the bio-accumulation of cadmium were found to be the highest (17.5 mg kgG1) in the bulb, when the concentration of cadmium in the solution was 1×10G2 M and lowest (0.11 mg kgG1) in the leaves when the concentration was 1×10G3 M.”

Captioning and Referencing Tables and Figures

Tables and figures are central components of your Results section and you need to carefully think about the most effective way to use graphs and tables to present your findings . Therefore, it is crucial to know how to write strong figure captions and to refer to them within the text of the Results section.

The most important advice one can give here as well as throughout the paper is to check the requirements and standards of the journal to which you are submitting your work. Every journal has its own design and layout standards, which you can find in the author instructions on the target journal’s website. Perusing a journal’s published articles will also give you an idea of the proper number, size, and complexity of your figures.

Regardless of which format you use, the figures should be placed in the order they are referenced in the Results section and be as clear and easy to understand as possible. If there are multiple variables being considered (within one or more research questions), it can be a good idea to split these up into separate figures. Subsequently, these can be referenced and analyzed under separate headings and paragraphs in the text.

To create a caption, consider the research question being asked and change it into a phrase. For instance, if one question is “Which color did participants choose?”, the caption might be “Color choice by participant group.” Or in our last research paper example, where the question was “What is the concentration of cadmium in different parts of the onion after 14 days?” the caption reads:

 “Fig. 1(a-c): Mean concentration of Cd determined in (a) bulbs, (b) leaves, and (c) roots of onions after a 14-day period.”

Steps for Composing the Results Section

Because each study is unique, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to designing a strategy for structuring and writing the section of a research paper where findings are presented. The content and layout of this section will be determined by the specific area of research, the design of the study and its particular methodologies, and the guidelines of the target journal and its editors. However, the following steps can be used to compose the results of most scientific research studies and are essential for researchers who are new to preparing a manuscript for publication or who need a reminder of how to construct the Results section.

Step 1 : Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study.

• The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will provide sound examples of successful approaches.
• Note length limitations on restrictions on content. For instance, while many journals require the Results and Discussion sections to be separate, others do not—qualitative research papers often include results and interpretations in the same section (“Results and Discussion”).
• Reading the aims and scope in the journal’s “ guide for authors ” section and understanding the interests of its readers will be invaluable in preparing to write the Results section.

Step 2 : Consider your research results in relation to the journal’s requirements and catalogue your results.

• Focus on experimental results and other findings that are especially relevant to your research questions and objectives and include them even if they are unexpected or do not support your ideas and hypotheses.
• Catalogue your findings—use subheadings to streamline and clarify your report. This will help you avoid excessive and peripheral details as you write and also help your reader understand and remember your findings. Create appendices that might interest specialists but prove too long or distracting for other readers.
• Decide how you will structure of your results. You might match the order of the research questions and hypotheses to your results, or you could arrange them according to the order presented in the Methods section. A chronological order or even a hierarchy of importance or meaningful grouping of main themes or categories might prove effective. Consider your audience, evidence, and most importantly, the objectives of your research when choosing a structure for presenting your findings.

Step 3 : Design figures and tables to present and illustrate your data.

• Tables and figures should be numbered according to the order in which they are mentioned in the main text of the paper.
• Information in figures should be relatively self-explanatory (with the aid of captions), and their design should include all definitions and other information necessary for readers to understand the findings without reading all of the text.
• Use tables and figures as a focal point to tell a clear and informative story about your research and avoid repeating information. But remember that while figures clarify and enhance the text, they cannot replace it.

Step 4 : Draft your Results section using the findings and figures you have organized.

• The goal is to communicate this complex information as clearly and precisely as possible; precise and compact phrases and sentences are most effective.
• In the opening paragraph of this section, restate your research questions or aims to focus the reader’s attention to what the results are trying to show. It is also a good idea to summarize key findings at the end of this section to create a logical transition to the interpretation and discussion that follows.
• Try to write in the past tense and the active voice to relay the findings since the research has already been done and the agent is usually clear. This will ensure that your explanations are also clear and logical.
• Make sure that any specialized terminology or abbreviation you have used here has been defined and clarified in the  Introduction section .

Step 5 : Review your draft; edit and revise until it reports results exactly as you would like to have them reported to your readers.

• Double-check the accuracy and consistency of all the data, as well as all of the visual elements included.
• Read your draft aloud to catch language errors (grammar, spelling, and mechanics), awkward phrases, and missing transitions.
• Ensure that your results are presented in the best order to focus on objectives and prepare readers for interpretations, valuations, and recommendations in the Discussion section . Look back over the paper’s Introduction and background while anticipating the Discussion and Conclusion sections to ensure that the presentation of your results is consistent and effective.
• Consider seeking additional guidance on your paper. Find additional readers to look over your Results section and see if it can be improved in any way. Peers, professors, or qualified experts can provide valuable insights.

One excellent option is to use a professional English proofreading and editing service  such as Wordvice, including our paper editing service . With hundreds of qualified editors from dozens of scientific fields, Wordvice has helped thousands of authors revise their manuscripts and get accepted into their target journals. Read more about the  proofreading and editing process  before proceeding with getting academic editing services and manuscript editing services for your manuscript.

As the representation of your study’s data output, the Results section presents the core information in your research paper. By writing with clarity and conciseness and by highlighting and explaining the crucial findings of their study, authors increase the impact and effectiveness of their research manuscripts.

For more articles and videos on writing your research manuscript, visit Wordvice’s Resources page.

Wordvice Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 21 August 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 25 October 2022.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion . It should not be a second results section .

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary: A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarise your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasise weaknesses or failures.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Start this section by reiterating your research problem  and concisely summarising your major findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported – aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main  research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that …
• The study demonstrates a correlation between …
• This analysis supports the theory that …
• The data suggest  that …

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualising your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organise your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis …
• Contrary to the hypothesised association …
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2007) that …
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is x .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of …
• The results do not fit with the theory that …
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between …
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to …
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of …
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalisability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analysing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalisability of the results is limited by …
• The reliability of these data is impacted by …
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm …
• The methodological choices were constrained by …
• It is beyond the scope of this study to …

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done – give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish …
• Future studies should take into account …
• Avenues for future research include …

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a results section | tips & examples, research paper appendix | example & templates, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Results

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

Results Section in Research

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

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

Structure of Research Results Section

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

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

Outline of Research Results Section

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

I. Introduction

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

II. Descriptive statistics

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

III. Inferential statistics

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

IV. Effect sizes and confidence intervals

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

V. Subgroup analyses

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

VI. Limitations and assumptions

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

VII. Conclusions

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

Example of Research Results Section

An Example of a Research Results Section could be:

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

II. Participants

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

III. Results

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

IV. Discussion

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

V. Conclusion

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

Example of Research Results in Research Paper :

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

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

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

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

Example 3 :

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

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

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

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

Importance of Research Results

Research results are important for several reasons, including:

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

How to Write Results in A Research Paper

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

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

When to Write Research Results

Here are situations When to Write Research Results”

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

Purpose of Research Results

The purposes of Research Results are as follows:

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

Advantages of Research Results

Some Advantages of Research Results are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 15 April 2024

What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography

• Trisha Greenhalgh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088 1 ,
• Julie L. Darbyshire 1 ,
• Cassie Lee 2 ,
• Emma Ladds 1 &
• Jenny Ceolta-Smith 3  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  159 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

822 Accesses

55 Altmetric

Metrics details

Long covid (post covid-19 condition) is a complex condition with diverse manifestations, uncertain prognosis and wide variation in current approaches to management. There have been calls for formal quality standards to reduce a so-called “postcode lottery” of care. The original aim of this study—to examine the nature of quality in long covid care and reduce unwarranted variation in services—evolved to focus on examining the reasons why standardizing care was so challenging in this condition.

In 2021–2023, we ran a quality improvement collaborative across 10 UK sites. The dataset reported here was mostly but not entirely qualitative. It included data on the origins and current context of each clinic, interviews with staff and patients, and ethnographic observations at 13 clinics (50 consultations) and 45 multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (244 patient cases). Data collection and analysis were informed by relevant lenses from clinical care (e.g. evidence-based guidelines), improvement science (e.g. quality improvement cycles) and philosophy of knowledge.

Participating clinics made progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics; some variation remained but this could usually be explained. Clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in their healthcare ecosystem and served a varied caseload including a high proportion of patients with comorbidities. A key mechanism for achieving high-quality long covid care was when local MDTs deliberated on unusual, complex or challenging cases for which evidence-based guidelines provided no easy answers. In such cases, collective learning occurred through idiographic (case-based) reasoning , in which practitioners build lessons from the particular to the general. This contrasts with the nomothetic reasoning implicit in evidence-based guidelines, in which reasoning is assumed to go from the general (e.g. findings of clinical trials) to the particular (management of individual patients).

Not all variation in long covid services is unwarranted. Largely because long covid’s manifestations are so varied and comorbidities common, generic “evidence-based” standards require much individual adaptation. In this complex condition, quality improvement resources may be productively spent supporting MDTs to optimise their case-based learning through interdisciplinary discussion. Quality assessment of a long covid service should include review of a sample of individual cases to assess how guidelines have been interpreted and personalized to meet patients’ unique needs.

Study registration

NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Peer Review reports

The term “long covid” [ 1 ] means prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection not explained by an alternative diagnosis [ 2 ]. It embraces the US term “post-covid conditions” (symptoms beyond 4 weeks) [ 3 ], the UK terms “ongoing symptomatic covid-19” (symptoms lasting 4–12 weeks) and “post covid-19 syndrome” (symptoms beyond 12 weeks) [ 4 ] and the World Health Organization’s “post covid-19 condition” (symptoms occurring beyond 3 months and persisting for at least 2 months) [ 5 ]. Long covid thus defined is extremely common. In UK, for example, 1.8 million of a population of 67 million met the criteria for long covid in early 2023 and 41% of these had been unwell for more than 2 years [ 6 ].

Long covid is characterized by a constellation of symptoms which may include breathlessness, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, chest pain, memory loss and impaired concentration (“brain fog”), sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, palpitations, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea, skin rashes and allergy to food or drugs [ 2 ]. These lead to difficulties with essential daily activities such as washing and dressing, impaired exercise tolerance and ability to work, and reduced quality of life [ 2 , 7 , 8 ]. Symptoms typically cluster (e.g. in different patients, long covid may be dominated by fatigue, by breathlessness or by palpitations and dizziness) [ 9 , 10 ]. Long covid may follow a fairly constant course or a relapsing and remitting one, perhaps with specific triggers [ 11 ]. Overlaps between fatigue-dominant subtypes of long covid, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome have been hypothesized [ 12 ] but at the time of writing remain unproven.

Long covid has been a contested condition from the outset. Whilst long-term sequelae following other coronavirus (SARS and MERS) infections were already well-documented [ 13 ], SARS-CoV-2 was originally thought to cause a short-lived respiratory illness from which the patient either died or recovered [ 14 ]. Some clinicians dismissed protracted or relapsing symptoms as due to anxiety or deconditioning, especially if the patient had not had laboratory-confirmed covid-19. People with long covid got together in online groups and shared accounts of their symptoms and experiences of such “gaslighting” in their healthcare encounters [ 15 , 16 ]. Some groups conducted surveys on their members, documenting the wide range of symptoms listed in the previous paragraph and showing that whilst long covid is more commonly a sequel to severe acute covid-19, it can (rarely) follow a mild or even asymptomatic acute infection [ 17 ].

Early publications on long covid depicted a post-pneumonia syndrome which primarily affected patients who had been hospitalized (and sometimes ventilated) [ 18 , 19 ]. Later, covid-19 was recognized to be a multi-organ inflammatory condition (the pneumonia, for example, was reclassified as pneumonitis ) and its long-term sequelae attributed to a combination of viral persistence, dysregulated immune response (including auto-immunity), endothelial dysfunction and immuno-thrombosis, leading to damage to the lining of small blood vessels and (thence) interference with transfer of oxygen and nutrients to vital organs [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. But most such studies were highly specialized, laboratory-based and written primarily for an audience of fellow laboratory researchers. Despite demonstrating mean differences in a number of metabolic variables, they failed to identify a reliable biomarker that could be used routinely in the clinic to rule a diagnosis of long covid in or out. Whilst the evidence base from laboratory studies grew rapidly, it had little influence on clinical management—partly because most long covid clinics had been set up with impressive speed by front-line clinical teams to address an immediate crisis, with little or no input from immunologists, virologists or metabolic specialists [ 25 ].

Studies of the patient experience revealed wide geographical variation in whether any long covid services were provided and (if they were) which patients were eligible for these and what tests and treatments were available [ 26 ]. An interim UK clinical guideline for long covid had been produced at speed and published in December 2020 [ 27 ], but it was uncertain about diagnostic criteria, investigations, treatments and prognosis. Early policy recommendations for long covid services in England, based on wide consultation across UK, had proposed a tiered service with “tier 1” being supported self-management, “tier 2” generalist assessment and management in primary care, “tier 3” specialist rehabilitation or respiratory follow-up with oversight from a consultant physician and “tier 4” tertiary care for patients with complications or complex needs [ 28 ]. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was allocated to establish 90 multidisciplinary long covid clinics in England [ 29 ]; some clinics were also set up with local funding in Scotland and Wales. These clinics varied widely in eligibility criteria, referral pathways, staffing mix (some had no doctors at all) and investigations and treatments offered. A further policy document on improving long covid services was published in 2022 [ 30 ]; it recommended that specialist long covid clinics should continue, though the long-term funding of these services remains uncertain [ 31 ]. To build the evidence base for delivering long covid services, major programs of publicly funded research were commenced in both UK [ 32 ] and USA [ 33 ].

In short, at the time this study began (late 2021), there appeared to be much scope for a program of quality improvement which would capture fast-emerging research findings, establish evidence-based standards and ensure these were rapidly disseminated and consistently adopted across both specialist long covid services and in primary care.

Quality improvement collaboratives

The quality improvement movement in healthcare was born in the early 1980s when clinicians and policymakers US and UK [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] began to draw on insights from outside the sector [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Adapting a total quality management approach that had previously transformed the Japanese car industry, they sought to improve efficiency, reduce waste, shift to treating the upstream causes of problems (hence preventing disease) and help all services approach the standards of excellence achieved by the best. They developed an approach based on (a) understanding healthcare as a complex system (especially its key interdependencies and workflows), (b) analysing and addressing variation within the system, (c) learning continuously from real-world data and (d) developing leaders who could motivate people and help them change structures and processes [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Quality improvement collaboratives (originally termed “breakthrough collaboratives” [ 45 ]), in which representatives from different healthcare organizations come together to address a common problem, identify best practice, set goals, share data and initiate and evaluate improvement efforts [ 46 ], are one model used to deliver system-wide quality improvement. It is widely assumed that these collaboratives work because—and to the extent that—they identify, interpret and implement high-quality evidence (e.g. from randomized controlled trials).

Research on why quality improvement collaboratives succeed or fail has produced the following list of critical success factors: taking a whole-system approach, selecting a topic and goal that fits with organizations’ priorities, fostering a culture of quality improvement (e.g. that quality is everyone’s job), engagement of everyone (including the multidisciplinary clinical team, managers, patients and families) in the improvement effort, clearly defining people’s roles and contribution, engaging people in preliminary groundwork, providing organizational-level support (e.g. chief executive endorsement, protected staff time, training and support for teams, resources, quality-focused human resource practices, external facilitation if needed), training in specific quality improvement techniques (e.g. plan-do-study-act cycle), attending to the human dimension (including cultivating trust and working to ensure shared vision and buy-in), continuously generating reliable data on both processes (e.g. current practice) and outcomes (clinical, satisfaction) and a “learning system” infrastructure in which knowledge that is generated feeds into individual, team and organizational learning [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ].

The quality improvement collaborative approach has delivered many successes but it has been criticized at a theoretical level for over-simplifying the social science of human motivation and behaviour and for adopting a somewhat mechanical approach to the study of complex systems [ 55 , 56 ]. Adaptations of the original quality improvement methodology (e.g. from Sweden [ 57 , 58 ]) have placed greater emphasis on human values and meaning-making, on the grounds that reducing the complexities of a system-wide quality improvement effort to a set of abstract and generic “success factors” will miss unique aspects of the case such as historical path dependencies, personalities, framing and meaning-making and micropolitics [ 59 ].

Perhaps this explains why, when the abovementioned factors are met, a quality improvement collaborative’s success is more likely but is not guaranteed, as a systematic review demonstrated [ 60 ]. Some well-designed and well-resourced collaboratives addressing clear knowledge gaps produced few or no sustained changes in key outcome measures [ 49 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. To identify why this might be, a detailed understanding of a service’s history, current challenges and contextual constraints is needed. This explains our decision, part-way through the study reported here, to collect rich contextual data on participating sites so as to better explain success or failure of our own collaborative.

Warranted and unwarranted variation in clinical practice

A generation ago, Wennberg described most variation in clinical practice as “unwarranted” (which he defined as variation in the utilization of health care services that cannot be explained by variation in patient illness or patient preferences) [ 63 ]. Others coined the term “postcode lottery” to depict how such variation allegedly impacted on health outcomes [ 64 ]. Wennberg and colleagues’ Atlas of Variation , introduced in 1999 [ 65 ], and its UK equivalent, introduced in 2010 [ 66 ], described wide regional differences in the rates of procedures from arthroscopy to hysterectomy, and were used to prompt services to identify and address examples of under-treatment, mis-treatment and over-treatment. Numerous similar initiatives, mostly based on hospital activity statistics, have been introduced around the world [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Sutherland and Levesque’s proposed framework for analysing variation, for example, has three domains: capacity (broadly, whether sufficient resources are allocated at organizational level and whether individuals have the time and headspace to get involved), evidence (the extent to which evidence-based guidelines exist and are followed), and agency (e.g. whether clinicians are engaged with the issue and the effect of patient choice) [ 70 ].

Whilst it is clearly a good idea to identify unwarranted variation in practice, it is also important to acknowledge that variation can be warranted . The very act of measuring and describing variation carries great rhetorical power, since revealing geographical variation in any chosen metric effectively frames this as a problem with a conceptually simple solution (reducing variation) that will appeal to both politicians and the public [ 71 ]. The temptation to expose variation (e.g. via visualizations such as maps) and address it in mechanistic ways should be resisted until we have fully understood the reasons why it exists, which may include perverse incentives, insufficient opportunities to discuss cases with colleagues, weak or absent feedback on practice, unclear decision processes, contested definitions of appropriate care and professional challenges to guidelines [ 72 ].

Research question, aims and objectives

Research question.

What is quality in long covid care and how can it best be achieved?

To identify best practice and reduce unwarranted variation in UK long covid services.

To explain aspects of variation in long covid services that are or may be warranted.

Our original objectives were to:

Establish a quality improvement collaborative for 10 long covid clinics across UK.

Use quality improvement methods in collaboration with patients and clinic staff to prioritize aspects of care to improve. For each priority topic, identify best (evidence-informed) clinical practice, measure performance in each clinic, compare performance with a best practice benchmark and improve performance.

Produce organizational case studies of participating long covid clinics to explain their origins, evolution, leadership, ethos, population served, patient pathways and place in the wider healthcare ecosystem.

Examine these case studies to explain variation in practice, especially in topics where the quality improvement cycle proves difficult to follow or has limited impact.

The LOCOMOTION study

LOCOMOTION (LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and services across the NHS) was a 30-month multi-site case study of 10 long covid clinics (8 in England, 1 in Wales and 1 in Scotland), beginning in 2021, which sought to optimise long covid care. Each clinic offered multidisciplinary care to patients referred from primary or secondary care (and, in some cases, self-referred), and held regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, mostly online via Microsoft Teams, to discuss cases. A study protocol for LOCOMOTION, with details of ethical approvals, management, governance and patient involvement has been published [ 25 ]. The three main work packages addressed quality improvement, technology-supported patient self-management and phenotyping and symptom clustering. This paper reports on the first work package, focusing mainly on qualitative findings.

Setting up the quality improvement collaborative

We broadly followed standard methodology for “breakthrough” quality improvement collaboratives [ 44 , 45 ], with two exceptions. First, because of geographical distance, continuing pandemic precautions and developments in videoconferencing technology, meetings were held online. Second, unlike in the original breakthrough model, patients were included in the collaborative, reflecting the cultural change towards patient partnerships since the model was originally proposed 40 years ago.

Each site appointed a clinical research fellow (doctor, nurse or allied health professional) funded partly by the LOCOMOTION study and partly with clinical sessions; some were existing staff who were backfilled to take on a research role whilst others were new appointments. The quality improvement meetings were held approximately every 8 weeks on Microsoft Teams and lasted about 2 h; there was an agenda and a chair, and meetings were recorded with consent. The clinical research fellow from each clinic attended, sometimes joined by the clinical lead for that site. In the initial meeting, the group proposed and prioritized topics before merging their consensus with the list of priority topics generated separately by patients (there was much overlap but also some differences).

In subsequent meetings, participants attempted to reach consensus on how to define, measure and achieve quality for each priority topic in turn, implement this approach in their own clinic and monitor its impact. Clinical leads prepared illustrative clinical cases and summaries of the research evidence, which they presented using Microsoft Powerpoint; the group then worked towards consensus on the implications for practice through general discussion. Clinical research fellows assisted with literature searches, collected baseline data from their own clinic, prepared and presented anonymized case examples, and contributed to collaborative goal-setting for improvement. Progress on each topic was reviewed at a later meeting after an agreed interval.

An additional element of this work package was semi-structured interviews with 29 patients, recruited from 9 of the 10 participating sites, about their clinic experiences with a view to feeding into service improvement (in the other site, no patient volunteered).

Our patient advisory group initially met separately from the quality improvement collaborative. They designed a short survey of current practice and sent it to each clinic; the results of this informed a prioritization exercise for topics where they considered change was needed. The patient-generated list was tabled at the quality improvement collaborative discussions, but patients were understandably keen to join these discussions directly. After about 9 months, some patient advisory group members joined the regular collaborative meetings. This dynamic was not without its tensions, since sharing performance data requires trust and there were some concerns about confidentiality when real patient cases were discussed with other patients present.

How evidence-informed quality targets were set

At the time the study began, there were no published large-scale randomized controlled trials of any interventions for long covid. We therefore followed a model used successfully in other quality improvement efforts where research evidence was limited or absent or it did not translate unambiguously into models for current services. In such circumstances, the best evidence may be custom and practice in the best-performing units. The quality improvement effort becomes oriented to what one group of researchers called “potentially better practices”—that is, practices that are “developed through analysis of the processes of care, literature review, and site visits” (page 14) [ 73 ]. The idea was that facilitated discussion among clinical teams, drawing on published research where available but also incorporating clinical experience, established practice and systematic analysis of performance data across participating clinics would surface these “potentially better practices”—an approach which, though not formally tested in controlled trials, appears to be associated with improved outcomes [ 46 , 73 ].

Adding an ethnographic component

Following limited progress made on some topics that had been designated high priority, we interviewed all 10 clinical research fellows (either individually or, in two cases, with a senior clinician present) and 18 other clinic staff (five individually plus two groups of 5 and 8), along with additional informal discussions, to explore the challenges of implementing the changes that had been agreed. These interviews were not audiotaped but detailed notes were made and typed up immediately afterwards. It became evident that some aspects of what the collaborative had deemed “evidence-informed” care were contested by front-line clinic staff, perceived as irrelevant to the service they were delivering, or considered impossible to implement. To unpack these issues further, the research protocol was amended to include an ethnographic component.

TG and EL (academic general practitioners) and JLD (a qualitative researcher with a PhD in the patient experience) attended a total of 45 MDT meetings in participating clinics (mostly online or hybrid). Staff were informed in advance that there would be an observer present; nobody objected. We noted brief demographic and clinical details of cases discussed (but no identifying data), dilemmas and uncertainties on which discussions focused, and how different staff members contributed.

TG made 13 in-person visits to participating long covid clinics. Staff were notified in advance; all were happy to be observed. Visits lasted between 5 and 8 h (54 h in total). We observed support staff booking patients in and processing requests and referrals, and shadowed different clinical staff in turn as they saw patients. Patients were informed of our presence and its purpose beforehand and given the opportunity to decline (three of 53 patients approached did). We discussed aspects of each case with the clinician after the patient left. When invited, we took breaks with staff and used these as an opportunity to ask them informally what it was like working in the clinic.

Ethnographic observation, analysis and reporting was geared to generating a rich interpretive account of the clinical, operational and interpersonal features of each clinic—what Van Maanen calls an “impressionist tales” [ 74 ]. Our work was also guided by the principles set out by Golden-Biddle and Locke, namely authenticity (spending time in the field and basing interpretations on these direct observations), plausibility (creating a plausible account through rich persuasive description) and criticality (e.g. reflexively examining our own assumptions) [ 75 ]. Our collection and analysis of qualitative data was informed by our own professional backgrounds (two general practitioners, one physical therapist, two non-clinicians).

In both MDTs and clinics, we took contemporaneous notes by hand and typed these up immediately afterwards.

Data management and analysis

Typed interview notes and field notes from clinics were collated in a set of Word documents, one for each clinic attended. They were analysed thematically [ 76 ] with attention to the literature on quality improvement and variation (see “ Background ”). Interim summaries were prepared on each clinic, setting out the narrative of how it had been established, its ethos and leadership, setting and staffing, population served and key links with other parts of the local healthcare ecosystem.

Minutes and field notes from the quality improvement collaborative meetings were summarized topic by topic, including initial data collected by the researchers-in-residence, improvement actions taken (or attempted) in that clinic, and any follow-up data shared. Progress or lack of it was interpreted in relation to the contextual case summary for that clinic.

Patient cases seen in clinic, and those discussed by MDTs, were summarized as brief case narratives in Word documents. Using the constant comparative method [ 77 ], we produced an initial synthesis of the clinical picture and principles of management based on the first 10 patient cases seen, and refined this as each additional case was added. Demographic and brief clinical and social details were also logged on Excel spreadsheets. When writing up clinical cases, we used the technique of composite case construction (in which we drew on several actual cases to generate a fictitious one, thereby protecting anonymity whilst preserving key empirical findings [ 78 ]); any names reported in this paper are pseudonyms.

Member checking

A summary was prepared for each clinic, including a narrative of the clinic’s own history and a summary of key quality issues raised across the ten clinics. These summaries included examples from real cases in our dataset. These were shared with the clinical research fellow and a senior clinician from the clinic, and amended in response to feedback. We also shared these summaries with representatives from the patient advisory group.

Overview of dataset

This study generated three complementary datasets. First, the video recordings, minutes, and field notes of 12 quality improvement collaborative meetings, along with the evidence summaries prepared for these meetings and clinic summaries (e.g. descriptions of current practice, audits) submitted by the clinical research fellows. This dataset illustrated wide variation in practice, and (in many topics) gaps or ambiguities in the evidence base.

Second, interviews with staff ( n  = 30) and patients ( n  = 29) from the clinics, along with ethnographic field notes (approximately 100 pages) from 13 in-person clinic visits (54 h), including notes on 50 patient consultations (40 face-to-face, 6 telephone, 4 video). This dataset illustrated the heterogeneity among the ten participating clinics.

Third, field notes (approximately 100 pages), including discussions on 244 clinical cases from the 45 MDT meetings (49 h) that we observed. This dataset revealed further similarities and contrasts among clinics in how patients were managed. In particular, it illustrated how, for the complex patients whose cases were presented at these meetings, teams made sense of, and planned for, each case through multidisciplinary dialogue. This dialogue typically began with one staff member presenting a detailed clinical history along with a narrative of how it had affected the patient’s life and what was at stake for them (e.g. job loss), after which professionals from various backgrounds (nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, psychology, dietetics, and different medical specialties) joined in a discussion about what to do.

The ten participating sites are summarized in Table  1 .

In the next two sections, we explore two issues—difficulty defining best practice and the heterogeneous nature of the clinics—that were key to explaining why quality, when pursued in a 10-site collaborative, proved elusive. We then briefly summarize patients’ accounts of their experience in the clinics and give three illustrative examples of the elusiveness of quality improvement using selected topics that were prioritized in our collaborative: outcome measures, investigation of palpitations and management of fatigue. In the final section of the results, we describe how MDT deliberations proved crucial for local quality improvement. Further detail on clinical priority topics will be presented in a separate paper.

“Best practice” in long covid: uncertainty and conflict

The study period (September 2021 to December 2023) corresponded with an exponential increase in published research on long covid. Despite this, the quality improvement collaborative found few unambiguous recommendations for practice. This gap between what the research literature offered and what clinical practice needed was partly ontological (relating what long covid is ). One major bone of contention between patients and clinicians (also evident in discussions with our patient advisory group), for example, was how far (and in whom) clinicians should look for and attempt to treat the various metabolic abnormalities that had been documented in laboratory research studies. The literature on this topic was extensive but conflicting [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]; it was heavy on biological detail but light on clinical application.

Patients were often aware of particular studies that appeared to offer plausible molecular or cellular explanations for symptom clusters along with a drug (often repurposed and off-label) whose mechanism of action appeared to be a good fit with the metabolic chain of causation. In one clinic, for example, we were shown an email exchange between a patient (not medically qualified) and a consultant, in which the patient asked them to reconsider their decision not to prescribe low-dose naltrexone, an opioid receptor antagonist with anti-inflammatory properties. The request included a copy of a peer-reviewed academic paper describing a small, uncontrolled pre-post study (i.e. a weak study design) in which this drug appeared to improve symptoms and functional performance in patients with long covid, as well as a mechanistic argument explaining why the patient felt this drug was a plausible choice in their own case.

This patient’s clinician, in common with most clinicians delivering front-line long covid services, considered that the evidence for such mechanism-based therapies was weak. Clinicians generally felt that this evidence, whilst promising, did not yet support routine measurement of clotting factors, antibodies, immune cells or other biomarkers or the prescription of mechanism-based therapies such as antivirals, anti-inflammatories or anticoagulants. Low-dose naltroxone, for example, is currently being tested in at least one randomized controlled trial (see National Clinical Trials Registry NCT05430152), which had not reported at the time of our observations.

Another challenge to defining best practice was the oft-repeated phrase that long covid is a “diagnosis by exclusion”, but the high prevalence of comorbidities meant that the “pure” long covid patient untainted by other potential explanations for their symptoms was a textbook ideal. In one MDT, for example, we observed a discussion about a patient who had had both swab-positive covid-19 and erythema migrans (a sign of Lyme disease) in the weeks before developing fatigue, yet local diagnostic criteria for each condition required the other to be excluded.

The logic of management in most participating clinics was pragmatic: prompt multidisciplinary assessment and treatment with an emphasis on obtaining a detailed clinical history (including premorbid health status), excluding serious complications (“red flags”), managing specific symptom clusters (for example, physical therapy for breathing pattern disorder), treating comorbidities (for example, anaemia, diabetes or menopause) and supporting whole-person rehabilitation [ 7 , 83 ]. The evidentiary questions raised in MDT discussions (which did not include patients) addressed the practicalities of the rehabilitation model (for example, whether cognitive therapy for neurocognitive complications is as effective when delivered online as it is when delivered in-person) rather than the molecular or cellular mechanisms of disease. For example, the question of whether patients with neurocognitive impairment should be tested for micro-clots or treated with anticoagulants never came up in the MDTs we observed, though we did visit a tertiary referral clinic (the tier 4 clinic in site H), whose lead clinician had a research interest in inflammatory coagulopathies and offered such tests to selected patients.

Because long covid typically produces dozens of symptoms that tend to be uniquely patterned in each patient, the uncertainties on which MDT discussions turned were rarely about general evidence of the kind that might be found in a guideline (e.g. how should fatigue be managed?). Rather they concerned particular case-based clinical decisions (e.g. how should this patient’s fatigue be managed, given the specifics of this case?). An example from our field notes illustrates this:

Physical therapist presents the case of a 39-year-old woman who works as a cleaner on an overnight ferry. Has had long covid for 2 years. Main symptoms are shortness of breath and possible anxiety attacks, especially when at work. She has had a course of physical therapy to teach diaphragmatic breathing but has found that focusing on her breathing makes her more anxious. Patient has to do a lot of bending in her job (e.g. cleaning toilets and under seats), which makes her dizzy, but Active Stand Test was normal. She also has very mild tricuspid incompetence [someone reads out a cardiology report—not hemodynamically significant].

Rehabilitation guidelines (e.g. WHO) recommend phased return to work (e.g. with reduced hours) and frequent breaks. “Tricky!” says someone. The job is intense and busy, and the patient can’t afford not to work. Discussion on whether all her symptoms can be attributed to tension and anxiety. Physical therapist who runs the breathing group says, “No, it’s long covid”, and describes severe initial covid-19 episode and results of serial chest X-rays which showed gradual clearing of ground glass shadows. Team discussion centers on how to negotiate reduced working hours in this particular job, given the overnight ferry shifts. --MDT discussion, Site D

This example raises important considerations about the nature of clinical knowledge in long covid. We return to it in the final section of the “ Results ” and in the “ Discussion ”.

Long covid clinics: a heterogeneous context for quality improvement

Most participating clinics had been established in mid-2020 to follow up patients who had been hospitalized (and perhaps ventilated) for severe acute covid-19. As mass vaccination reduced the severity of acute covid-19 for most people, the patient population in all clinics progressively shifted to include fewer “post-ICU [intensive care unit]” patients (in whom respiratory symptoms almost always dominated), and more people referred by their general practitioners or other secondary care specialties who had not been hospitalized for their acute covid-19 infection, and in whom fatigue, brain fog and palpitations were often the most troubling symptoms. Despite these similarities, the ten clinics had very different histories, geographical and material settings, staffing structures, patient pathways and case mix, as Table  1 illustrates. Below, we give more detail on three example sites.

Site C was established as a generalist “assessment-only” service by a general practitioner with an interest in infectious diseases. It is led jointly by that general practitioner and an occupational therapist, assisted by a wide range of other professionals including speech and language therapy, dietetics, clinical psychology and community-based physical therapy and occupational therapy. It has close links with a chronic fatigue service and a pain clinic that have been running in the locality for over 20 years. The clinic, which is entirely virtual (staff consult either from home or from a small side office in the community trust building), is physically located in a low-rise building on the industrial outskirts of a large town, sharing office space with various community-based health and social care services. Following a 1-h telephone consultation by one of the clinical leads, each patient is discussed at the MDT and then either discharged back to their general practitioner with a detailed management plan or referred on to one of the specialist services. This arrangement evolved to address a particular problem in this locality—that many patients with long covid were being referred by their general practitioner to multiple specialties (e.g. respiratory, neurology, fatigue), leading to a fragmented patient experience, unnecessary specialist assessments and wasteful duplication. The generalist assessment by telephone is oriented to documenting what is often a complex illness narrative (including pre-existing physical and mental comorbidities) and working with the patient to prioritize which symptoms or problems to pursue in which order.

Site E, in a well-regarded inner-city teaching hospital, had been set up in 2020 by a respiratory physician. Its initial ethos and rationale had been “respiratory follow-up”, with strong emphasis on monitoring lung damage via repeated imaging and lung function tests and in ensuring that patients received specialist physical therapy to “re-learn” efficient breathing techniques. Over time, this site has tried to accommodate a more multi-system assessment, with the introduction of a consultant-led infectious disease clinic for patients without a dominant respiratory component, reflecting the shift towards a more fatigue-predominant case mix. At the time of our fieldwork, each patient was seen in turn by a physician, psychologist, occupational therapist and respiratory physical therapist (half an hour each) before all four staff reconvened in a face-to-face MDT meeting to form a plan for each patient. But whilst a wide range of patients with diverse symptoms were discussed at these meetings, there remained a strong focus on respiratory pathology (e.g. tracking improvements in lung function and ensuring that coexisting asthma was optimally controlled).

Site F, one of the first long covid clinics in UK, was set up by a rehabilitation consultant who had been drafted to work on the ICU during the first wave of covid-19 in early 2020. He had a longstanding research interest in whole-patient rehabilitation, especially the assessment and management of chronic fatigue and pain. From the outset, clinic F was more oriented to rehabilitation, including vocational rehabilitation to help patients return to work. There was less emphasis on monitoring lung function or pursuing respiratory comorbidities. At the time of our fieldwork, clinic F offered both a community-based service (“tier 2”) led by an occupational therapist, supported by a respiratory physical therapist and psychologist, and a hospital-based service (“tier 3”) led by the rehabilitation consultant, supported by a wider MDT. Staff in both tiers emphasized that each patient needs a full physical and mental assessment and help to set and work towards achievable goals, whilst staying within safe limits so as to avoid post-exertional symptom exacerbation. Because of the research interest of the lead physician, clinic F adapted well to the growing numbers of patients with fatigue and quickly set up research studies on this cohort [ 84 ].

Details of the other seven sites are shown in Table  1 . Broadly speaking, sites B, E, G and H aligned with the “respiratory follow-up” model and sites F and I aligned with the “rehabilitation” model. Sites A and J had a high-volume, multi-tiered service whose community tier aligned with the “holistic GP assessment” model (site C above) and which also offered a hospital-based, rehabilitation-focused tier. The small service in Scotland (site D) had evolved from an initial respiratory focus to become part of the infectious diseases (ME/CFS) service; Lyme disease (another infectious disease whose sequelae include chronic fatigue) was also prevalent in this region.

The patient experience

Whilst the 10 participating clinics were very diverse in staffing, ethos and patient flows, the 29 patient interviews described remarkably consistent clinic experiences. Almost all identified the biggest problem to be the extended wait of several months before they were seen and the limited awareness (when initially referred) of what long covid clinics could provide. Some talked of how they cried with relief when they finally received an appointment. When the quality improvement collaborative was initially established, waiting times and bottlenecks were patients’ the top priority for quality improvement, and this ranking was shared by clinic staff, who were very aware of how much delays and uncertainties in assessment and treatment compounded patients’ suffering. This issue resolved to a large extent over the study period in all clinics as the referral backlog cleared and the incidence of new cases of long covid fell [ 85 ]; it will be covered in more detail in a separate publication.

Most patients in our sample were satisfied with the care they received when they were finally seen in clinic, especially how they finally felt “heard” after a clinician took a full history. They were relieved to receive affirmation of their experience, a diagnosis of what was wrong and reassurance that they were believed. They were grateful for the input of different members of the multidisciplinary teams and commented on the attentiveness, compassion and skill of allied professionals in particular (“she was wonderful, she got me breathing again”—patient BIR145 talking about a physical therapist). One or two patient participants expressed confusion about who exactly they had seen and what advice they had been given, and some did not realize that a telephone assessment had been an actual clinical consultation. A minority expressed disappointment that an expected investigation had not been ordered (one commented that they had not had any blood tests at all). Several had assumed that the help and advice from the long covid clinic would continue to be offered until they were better and were disappointed that they had been discharged after completing the various courses on offer (since their clinic had been set up as an “assessment only” service).

In the next sections, we give examples of topics raised in the quality improvement collaborative and how they were addressed.

Example quality topic 1: Outcome measures

The first topic considered by the quality improvement collaborative was how (that is, using which measures and metrics) to assess and monitor patients with long covid. In the absence of a validated biomarker, various symptom scores and quality of life scales—both generic and disease-specific—were mooted. Site F had already developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the C19-YRS (Covid-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale) and used it for both research and clinical purposes [ 86 ]. It was quickly agreed that, for the purposes of generating comparative research findings across the ten clinics, the C19-YRS should be used at all sites and completed by patients three-monthly. A commercial partner produced an electronic version of this instrument and an app for patient smartphones. The quality improvement collaborative also agreed that patients should be asked to complete the EUROQOL EQ5D, a widely used generic health-related quality of life scale [ 87 ], in order to facilitate comparisons between long covid and other chronic conditions.

In retrospect, the discussions which led to the unopposed adoption of these two measures as a “quality” initiative in clinical care were somewhat aspirational. A review of progress at a subsequent quality improvement meeting revealed considerable variation among clinics, with a wide variety of measures used in different clinics to different degrees. Reasons for this variation were multiple. First, although our patient advisory group were keen that we should gather as much data as possible on the patient experience of this new condition, many clinic patients found the long questionnaires exhausting to complete due to cognitive impairment and fatigue. In addition, whilst patients were keen to answer questions on symptoms that troubled them, many had limited patience to fill out repeated surveys on symptoms that did not trouble them (“it almost felt as if I’ve not got long covid because I didn’t feel like I fit the criteria as they were laying it out”—patient SAL001). Staff assisted patients in completing the measures when needed, but this was time-consuming (up to 45 min per instrument) and burdensome for both staff and patients. In clinics where a high proportion of patients required assistance, staff time was the rate-limiting factor for how many instruments got completed. For some patients, one short instrument was the most that could be asked of them, and the clinician made a judgement on which one would be in their best interests on the day.

The second reason for variation was that the clinical diagnosis and management of particular features, complications and comorbidities of long covid required more nuance than was provided by these relatively generic instruments, and the level of detail sought varied with the specialist interest of the clinic (and the clinician). The modified C19-YRS [ 88 ], for example, contained 19 items, of which one asked about sleep quality. But if a patient had sleep difficulties, many clinicians felt that these needed to be documented in more detail—for example using the 8-item Epworth Sleepiness Scale, originally developed for conditions such as narcolepsy and obstructive sleep apnea [ 89 ]. The “Epworth score” was essential currency for referrals to some but not all specialist sleep services. Similarly, the C19-YRS had three items relating to anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, but in clinics where there was a strong focus on mental health (e.g. when there was a resident psychologist), patients were usually invited to complete more specific tools (e.g. the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 [ 90 ], a 9-item questionnaire originally designed to assess severity of depression).

The third reason for variation was custom and practice. Ethnographic visits revealed that paper copies of certain instruments were routinely stacked on clinicians’ desks in outpatient departments and also (in some cases) handed out by administrative staff in waiting areas so that patients could complete them before seeing the clinician. These familiar clinic artefacts tended to be short (one-page) instruments that had a long tradition of use in clinical practice. They were not always fit for purpose. For example, the Nijmegen questionnaire was developed in the 1980s to assess hyperventilation; it was validated against a longer, “gold standard” instrument for that condition [ 91 ]. It subsequently became popular in respiratory clinics to diagnose or exclude breathing pattern disorder (a condition in which the normal physiological pattern of breathing becomes replaced with less efficient, shallower breathing [ 92 ]), so much so that the researchers who developed the instrument published a paper to warn fellow researchers that it had not been validated for this purpose [ 93 ]. Whilst a validated 17-item instrument for breathing pattern disorder (the Self-Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire [ 94 ]) does exist, it is not in widespread clinical use. Most clinics in LOCOMOTION used Nijmegen either on all patients (e.g. as part of a comprehensive initial assessment, especially if the service had begun as a respiratory follow-up clinic) or when breathing pattern disorder was suspected.

In sum, the use of outcome measures in long covid clinics was a compromise between standardization and contingency. On the one hand, all clinics accepted the need to use “validated” instruments consistently. On the other hand, there were sometimes good reasons why they deviated from agreed practice, including mismatch between the clinic’s priorities as a research site, its priorities as a clinical service, and the particular clinical needs of a patient; the clinic’s—and the clinician’s—specialist focus; and long-held traditions of using particular instruments with which staff and patients were familiar.

Example quality topic 2: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)

Palpitations (common in long covid) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS, a disproportionate acceleration in heart rate on standing, the assumed cause of palpitations in many long covid patients) was the top priority for quality improvement identified by our patient advisory group. Reflecting discussions and evidence (of various kinds) shared in online patient communities, the group were confident that POTS is common in long covid patients and that many cases remain undetected (perhaps misdiagnosed as anxiety). Their request that all long covid patients should be “screened” for POTS prompted a search for, and synthesis of, evidence (which we published in the BMJ [ 95 ]). In sum, that evidence was sparse and contested, but, combined with standard practice in specialist clinics, broadly supported the judicious use of the NASA Lean Test [ 96 ]. This test involves repeated measurements of pulse and blood pressure with the patient first lying and then standing (with shoulders resting against a wall).

The patient advisory group’s request that the NASA Lean Test should be conducted on all patients met with mixed responses from the clinics. In site F, the lead physician had an interest in autonomic dysfunction in chronic fatigue and was keen; he had already published a paper on how to adapt the NASA Lean Test for self-assessment at home [ 97 ]. Several other sites were initially opposed. Staff at site E, for example, offered various arguments:

The test is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and takes up space in the clinic which has an opportunity cost in terms of other potential uses;

The test is unvalidated and potentially misleading (there is a high incidence of both false negative and false positive results);

There is no proven treatment for POTS, so there is no point in testing for it;

It is a specialist test for a specialist condition, so it should be done in a specialist clinic where its benefits and limitations are better understood;

Objective testing does not change clinical management since what we treat is the patient’s symptoms (e.g. by a pragmatic trial of lifestyle measures and medication);

People with symptoms suggestive of dysautonomia have already been “triaged out” of this clinic (that is, identified in the initial telephone consultation and referred directly to neurology or cardiology);

POTS is a manifestation of the systemic nature of long covid; it does not need specific treatment but will improve spontaneously as the patient goes through standard interventions such as active pacing, respiratory physical therapy and sleep hygiene;

Testing everyone, even when asymptomatic, runs counter to the ethos of rehabilitation, which is to “de-medicalize” patients so as to better orient them to their recovery journey.

When clinics were invited to implement the NASA Lean Test on a consecutive sample of patients to resolve a dispute about the incidence of POTS (from “we’ve only seen a handful of people with it since the clinic began” to “POTS is common and often missed”), all but one site agreed to participate. The tertiary POTS centre linked to site H was already running the NASA Lean Test as standard on all patients. Site C, which operated entirely virtually, passed the work to the referring general practitioner by making this test a precondition for seeing the patient; site D, which was largely virtual, sent instructions for patients to self-administer the test at home.

The NASA Lean Test study has been published separately [ 98 ]. In sum, of 277 consecutive patients tested across the eight clinics, 20 (7%) had a positive NASA Lean Test for POTS and a further 28 (10%) a borderline result. Six of 20 patients who met the criteria for POTS on testing had no prior history of orthostatic intolerance. The question of whether this test should be used to “screen” all patients was not answered definitively. But the experience of participating in the study persuaded some sceptics that postural changes in heart rate could be severe in some long covid patients, did not appear to be fully explained by their previously held theories (e.g. “functional”, anxiety, deconditioning), and had likely been missed in some patients. The outcome of this particular quality improvement cycle was thus not a wholescale change in practice (for which the evidence base was weak) but a more subtle increase in clinical awareness, a greater willingness to consider testing for POTS and a greater commitment to contribute to research into this contested condition.

More generally, the POTS audit prompted some clinicians to recognize the value of quality improvement in novel clinical areas. One physician who had initially commented that POTS was not seen in their clinic, for example, reflected:

“ Our clinic population is changing. […] Overall there’s far fewer post-ICU patients with ECMO [extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation] issues and far more long covid from the community, and this is the bit our clinic isn’t doing so well on. We’re doing great on breathing pattern disorder; neuro[logists] are helping us with the brain fogs; our fatigue and occupational advice is ok but some of the dysautonomia symptoms that are more prevalent in the people who were not hospitalized – that’s where we need to improve .” -Respiratory physician, site G (from field visit 6.6.23)

Example quality topic 3: Management of fatigue

Fatigue was the commonest symptom overall and a high priority among both patients and clinicians for quality improvement. It often coexisted with the cluster of neurocognitive symptoms known as brain fog, with both conditions relapsing and remitting in step. Clinicians were keen to systematize fatigue management using a familiar clinical framework oriented around documenting a full clinical history, identifying associated symptoms, excluding or exploring comorbidities and alternative explanations (e.g. poor sleep patterns, depression, menopause, deconditioning), assessing how fatigue affects physical and mental function, implementing a program of physical and cognitive therapy that was sensitive to the patient’s condition and confidence level, and monitoring progress using validated patient-reported outcome measures and symptom diaries.

The underpinning logic of this approach, which broadly reflected World Health Organization guidance [ 99 ], was that fatigue and linked cognitive impairment could be a manifestation of many—perhaps interacting—conditions but that a whole-patient (body and mind) rehabilitation program was the cornerstone of management in most cases. Discussion in the quality improvement collaborative focused on issues such as whether fatigue was so severe that it produced safety concerns (e.g. in a person’s job or with childcare), the pros and cons of particular online courses such as yoga, relaxation and mindfulness (many were viewed positively, though the evidence base was considered weak), and the extent to which respiratory physical therapy had a crossover impact on fatigue (systematic reviews suggested that it may do, but these reviews also cautioned that primary studies were sparse, methodologically flawed, and heterogeneous [ 100 , 101 ]). They also debated the strengths and limitations of different fatigue-specific outcome measures, each of which had been developed and validated in a different condition, with varying emphasis on cognitive fatigue, physical fatigue, effect on daily life, and motivation. These instruments included the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; Fatigue Severity Scale [ 102 ]; Fatigue Assessment Scale; Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy—Fatigue (FACIT-F) [ 103 ]; Work and Social Adjustment Scale [ 104 ]; Chalder Fatigue Scale [ 105 ]; Visual Analogue Scale—Fatigue [ 106 ]; and the EQ5D [ 87 ]. In one clinic (site F), three of these scales were used in combination for reasons discussed below.

Some clinicians advocated melatonin or nutritional supplements (such as vitamin D or folic acid) for fatigue on the grounds that many patients found them helpful and formal placebo-controlled trials were unlikely ever to be conducted. But neurostimulants used in other fatigue-predominant conditions (e.g. brain injury, stroke), which also lacked clinical trial evidence in long covid, were viewed as inappropriate in most patients because of lack of evidence of clear benefit and hypothetical risk of harm (e.g. adverse drug reactions, polypharmacy).

Whilst the patient advisory group were broadly supportive of a whole-patient rehabilitative approach to fatigue, their primary concern was fatiguability , especially post-exertional symptom exacerbation (PESE, also known as “crashes”). In these, the patient becomes profoundly fatigued some hours or days after physical or mental exertion, and this state can last for days or even weeks [ 107 ]. Patients viewed PESE as a “red flag” symptom which they felt clinicians often missed and sometimes caused. They wanted the quality improvement effort to focus on ensuring that all clinicians were aware of the risks of PESE and acted accordingly. A discussion among patients and clinicians at a quality improvement collaborative meeting raised a new research hypothesis—that reducing the number of repeated episodes of PESE may improve the natural history of long covid.

These tensions around fatigue management played out differently in different clinics. In site C (the GP-led virtual clinic run from a community hub), fatigue was viewed as one manifestation of a whole-patient condition. The lead general practitioner used the metaphor of untangling a skein of wool: “you have to find the end and then gently pull it”. The underlying problem in a fatigued patient, for example, might be an undiagnosed physical condition such as anaemia, disturbed sleep, or inadequate pacing. These required (respectively) the chronic fatigue service (comprising an occupational therapist and specialist psychologist and oriented mainly to teaching the techniques of goal-setting and pacing), a “tiredness” work-up (e.g. to exclude anaemia or menopause), investigation of poor sleep (which, not uncommonly, was due to obstructive sleep apnea), and exploration of mental health issues.

In site G (a hospital clinic which had evolved from a respiratory service), patients with fatigue went through a fatigue management program led by the occupational therapist with emphasis on pacing, energy conservation, avoidance of PESE and sleep hygiene. Those without ongoing respiratory symptoms were often discharged back to their general practitioner once they had completed this; there was no consultant follow-up of unresolved fatigue.

In site F (a rehabilitation clinic which had a longstanding interest in chronic fatigue even before the pandemic), active interdisciplinary management of fatigue was commenced at or near the patient’s first visit, on the grounds that the earlier this began, the more successful it would be. In this clinic, patients were offered a more intensive package: a similar occupational therapy-led fatigue course as those in site G, plus input from a dietician to advise on regular balanced meals and caffeine avoidance and a group-based facilitated peer support program which centred on fatigue management. The dietician spoke enthusiastically about how improving diet in longstanding long covid patients often improved fatigue (e.g. because they had often lost muscle mass and tended to snack on convenience food rather than make meals from scratch), though she agreed there was no evidence base from trials to support this approach.

Pursuing local quality improvement through MDTs

Whilst some long covid patients had “textbook” symptoms and clinical findings, many cases were unique and some were fiendishly complex. One clinician commented that, somewhat paradoxically, “easy cases” were often the post-ICU follow-ups who had resolving chest complications; they tended to do well with a course of respiratory physical therapy and a return-to-work program. Such cases were rarely brought to MDT meetings. “Difficult cases” were patients who had not been hospitalized for their acute illness but presented with a months- or years-long history of multiple symptoms with fatigue typically predominant. Each one was different, as the following example (some details of which have been fictionalized to protect anonymity) illustrates.

The MDT is discussing Mrs Fermah, a 65-year-old homemaker who had covid-19 a year ago. She has had multiple symptoms since, including fluctuating fatigue, brain fog, breathlessness, retrosternal chest pain of burning character, dry cough, croaky voice, intermittent rashes (sometimes on eating), lips going blue, ankle swelling, orthopnoea, dizziness with the room spinning which can be triggered by stress, low back pain, aches and pains in the arms and legs and pins and needles in the fingertips, loss of taste and smell, palpitations and dizziness (unclear if postural, but clear association with nausea), headaches on waking, and dry mouth. She is somewhat overweight (body mass index 29) and admits to low mood. Functionally, she is mostly confined to the house and can no longer manage the stairs so has begun to sleep downstairs. She has stumbled once or twice but not fallen. Her social life has ceased and she rarely has the energy to see her grandchildren. Her 70-year-old husband is retired and generally supportive, though he spends most evenings at his club. Comorbidities include glaucoma which is well controlled and overseen by an ophthalmologist, mild club foot (congenital) and stage 1 breast cancer 20 years ago. Various tests, including a chest X-ray, resting and exercise oximetry and a blood panel, were normal except for borderline vitamin D level. Her breathing questionnaire score suggests she does not have breathing pattern disorder. ECG showed first-degree atrioventricular block and left axis deviation. No clinician has witnessed the blue lips. Her current treatment is online group respiratory physical therapy; a home visit is being arranged to assess her climbing stairs. She has declined a psychologist assessment. The consultant asks the nurse who assessed her: “Did you get a feel if this is a POTS-type dizziness or an ENT-type?” She sighs. “Honestly it was hard to tell, bless her.”—Site A MDT

This patient’s debilitating symptoms and functional impairments could all be due to long covid, yet “evidence-based” guidance for how to manage her complex suffering does not exist and likely never will exist. The question of which (if any) additional blood or imaging tests to do, in what order of priority, and what interventions to offer the patient will not be definitively answered by consulting clinical trials involving hundreds of patients, since (even if these existed) the decision involves weighing this patient’s history and the multiple factors and uncertainties that are relevant in her case. The knowledge that will help the MDT provide quality care to Mrs Fermah is case-based knowledge—accumulated clinical experience and wisdom from managing and deliberating on multiple similar cases. We consider case-based knowledge further in the “ Discussion ”.

Summary of key findings

This study has shown that a quality improvement collaborative of UK long covid clinics made some progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics, but some variation remained. This could be explained in part by the fact that different clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in the local healthcare ecosystem, served different populations, were differently staffed, and had different clinical interests. Our patient advisory group and clinicians in the quality improvement collaborative broadly prioritized the same topics for improvement but interpreted them somewhat differently. “Quality” long covid care had multiple dimensions, relating to (among other things) service set-up and accessibility, clinical provision appropriate to the patient’s need (including options for referral to other services locally), the human qualities of clinical and support staff, how knowledge was distributed across (and accessible within) the system, and the accumulated collective wisdom of local MDTs in dealing with complex cases (including multiple kinds of specialist expertise as well as relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient). Whilst both staff and patients were keen to contribute to the quality improvement effort, the burden of measurement was evident: multiple outcome measures, used repeatedly, were resource-intensive for staff and exhausting for patients.

Strengths and limitations of this study

To our knowledge, we are the first to report both a quality improvement collaborative and an in-depth qualitative study of clinical work in long covid. Key strengths of this work include the diverse sampling frame (with sites from three UK jurisdictions and serving widely differing geographies and demographics); the use of documents, interviews and reflexive interpretive ethnography to produce meaningful accounts of how clinics emerged and how they were currently organized; the use of philosophical concepts to analyse data on how MDTs produced quality care on a patient-by-patient basis; and the close involvement of patient co-researchers and coauthors during the research and writing up.

Limitations of the study include its exclusive UK focus (the external validity of findings to other healthcare systems is unknown); the self-selecting nature of participants in a quality improvement collaborative (our patient advisory group suggested that the MDTs observed in this study may have represented the higher end of a quality spectrum, hence would be more likely than other MDTs to adhere to guidelines); and the particular perspective brought by the researchers (two GPs, a physical therapist and one non-clinical person) in ethnographic observations. Hospital specialists or organizational scholars, for example, may have noticed different things or framed what they observed differently.

Explaining variation in long covid care

Sutherland and Levesque’s framework mentioned in the “ Background ” section does not explain much of the variation found in our study [ 70 ]. In terms of capacity, at the time of this study most participating clinics benefited from ring-fenced resources. In terms of evidence, guidelines existed and were not greatly contested, but as illustrated by the case of Mrs Fermah above, many patients were exceptions to the guideline because of complex symptomatology and relevant comorbidities. In terms of agency, clinicians in most clinics were passionately engaged with long covid (they were pioneers who had set up their local clinic and successfully bid for national ring-fenced resources) and were generally keen to support patient choice (though not if the patient requested tests which were unavailable or deemed not indicated).

Astma et al.’s list of factors that may explain variation in practice (see “ Background ”) includes several that may be relevant to long covid, especially that the definition of appropriate care in this condition remains somewhat contested. But lack of opportunity to discuss cases was not a problem in the clinics in our sample. On the contrary, MDT meetings in each locality gave clinicians multiple opportunities to discuss cases with colleagues and reflect collectively on whether and how to apply particular guidelines.

The key problem was not that clinicians disputed the guidelines for managing long covid or were unaware of them; it was that the guidelines were not self-interpreting . Rather, MDTs had to deliberate on the balance of benefits and harms in different aspects of individual cases. In patients whose symptoms suggested a possible diagnosis of POTS (or who suspected themselves of having POTS), for example, these deliberations were sometimes lengthy and nuanced. Should a test result that is not technically in the abnormal range but close to it be treated as diagnostic, given that symptoms point to this diagnosis? If not, should the patient be told that the test excludes POTS or that it is equivocal? If a cardiology opinion has stated firmly that the patient does not have POTS but the cardiologist is not known for their interest in this condition, should a second specialist opinion be sought? If the gold standard “tilt test” [ 108 ] for POTS (usually available only in tertiary centres) is not available locally, does this patient merit a costly out-of-locality referral? Should the patient’s request for a trial of off-label medication, reflecting discussions in an online support group, be honoured? These are the kinds of questions on which MDTs deliberated at length.

The fact that many cases required extensive deliberation does not necessarily justify variation in practice among clinics. But taking into account the clinics’ very different histories, set-up, and local referral pathways, the variation begins to make sense. A patient who is being assessed in a clinic that functions as a specialist chronic fatigue centre and attracts referrals which reflect this interest (e.g. site F in our sample) will receive different management advice from one that functions as a telephone-only generalist assessment centre and refers on to other specialties (site C in our sample). The wide variation in case mix, coupled with the fact that a different proportion of these cases were highly complex in each clinic (and in different ways), suggests that variation in practice may reflect appropriate rather than inappropriate care.

Our patient advisory group affirmed that many of the findings reported here resonated with their own experience, but they raised several concerns. These included questions about patient groups who may have been missed in our sample because they were rarely discussed in MDTs. The decision to take a case to MDT discussion is taken largely by a clinician, and there was evidence from online support groups that some patients’ requests for their case to be taken to an MDT had been declined (though not, to our knowledge, in the clinics participating in the LOCOMOTION study).

We began this study by asking “what is quality in long covid care?”. We initially assumed that this question referred to a generalizable evidence base, which we felt we could identify, and we believed that we could then determine whether long covid clinics were following the evidence base through conventional audits of structure, process, and outcome. In retrospect, these assumptions were somewhat naïve. On the basis of our findings, we suggest that a better (and more individualized) research question might be “to what extent does each patient with long covid receive evidence-based care appropriate to their needs?”. This question would require individual case review on a sample of cases, tracking each patient longitudinally including cross-referrals, and also interviewing the patient.

Nomothetic versus idiographic knowledge

In a series of lectures first delivered in the 1950s and recently republished [ 109 ], psychiatrist Dr Maurice O’Connor Drury drew on the later philosophy of his friend and mentor Ludwig Wittgenstein to challenge what he felt was a concerning trend: that the nomothetic (generalizable, abstract) knowledge from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was coming to over-ride the idiographic (personal, situated) knowledge about particular patients. Based on Wittgenstein’s writings on the importance of the particular, Drury predicted—presciently—that if implemented uncritically, RCTs would result in worse, not better, care for patients, since it would go hand-in-hand with a downgrading of experience, intuition, subjective judgement, personal reflection, and collective deliberation.

Much conventional quality improvement methodology is built on an assumption that nomothetic knowledge (for example, findings from RCTs and systematic reviews) is a higher form of knowing than idiographic knowledge. But idiographic, case-based reasoning—despite its position at the very bottom of evidence-based medicine’s hierarchy of evidence [ 110 ]—is a legitimate and important element of medical practice. Bioethicist Kathryn Montgomery, drawing on Aristotle’s notion of praxis , considers clinical practice to be an example of case-based reasoning [ 111 ]. Medicine is governed not by hard and fast laws but by competing maxims or rules of thumb ; the essence of judgement is deciding which (if any) rule should be applied in a particular circumstance. Clinical judgement incorporates science (especially the results of well-conducted research) and makes use of available tools and technologies (including guidelines and decision-support algorithms that incorporate research findings). But rather than being determined solely by these elements, clinical judgement is guided both by the scientific evidence and by the practical and ethical question “what is it best to do, for this individual, given these circumstances?”.

In this study, we observed clinical management of, and MDT deliberations on, hundreds of clinical cases. In the more straightforward ones (for example, recovering pneumonitis), guideline-driven care was not difficult to implement and such cases were rarely brought to the MDT. But cases like Mrs Fermah (see last section of “ Results ”) required much discussion on which aspects of which guideline were in the patient’s best interests to bring into play at any particular stage in their illness journey.

Conclusions

One systematic review on quality improvement collaboratives concluded that “ [those] reporting success generally addressed relatively straightforward aspects of care, had a strong evidence base and noted a clear evidence-practice gap in an accepted clinical pathway or guideline” (page 226) [ 60 ]. The findings from this study suggest that to the extent that such collaboratives address clinical cases that are not straightforward, conventional quality improvement methods may be less useful and even counterproductive.

The question “what is quality in long covid care?” is partly a philosophical one. Our findings support an approach that recognizes and values idiographic knowledge —including establishing and protecting a safe and supportive space for deliberation on individual cases to occur and to value and draw upon the collective learning that occurs in these spaces. It is through such deliberation that evidence-based guidelines can be appropriately interpreted and applied to the unique needs and circumstances of individual patients. We suggest that Drury’s warning about the limitations of nomothetic knowledge should prompt a reassessment of policies that rely too heavily on such knowledge, resulting in one-size-fits-all protocols. We also cautiously hypothesize that the need to centre the quality improvement effort on idiographic rather than nomothetic knowledge is unlikely to be unique to long covid. Indeed, such an approach may be particularly important in any condition that is complex, unpredictable, variable in presentation and clinical course, and associated with comorbidities.

Availability of data and materials

Selected qualitative data (ensuring no identifiable information) will be made available to formal research teams on reasonable request to Professor Greenhalgh at the University of Oxford, on condition that they have research ethics approval and relevant expertise. The quantitative data on NASA Lean Test have been published in full in a separate paper [ 98 ].

Abbreviations

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Intensive care unit

Jenny Ceolta-Smith

Julie Darbyshire

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and services across the NHS

Multidisciplinary team

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

National Aeronautics and Space Association

Occupational therapy/ist

Post-exertional symptom exacerbation

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

Speech and language therapy

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Trisha Greenhalgh

United Kingdom

United States

World Health Organization

Perego E, Callard F, Stras L, Melville-JÛhannesson B, Pope R, Alwan N. Why the Patient-Made Term “Long Covid” is needed. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:224.

Article   Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh T, Sivan M, Delaney B, Evans R, Milne R: Long covid—an update for primary care. bmj 2022;378:e072117.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US): Long COVID or Post-COVID Conditions (updated 16th December 2022). Atlanta: CDC. Accessed 2nd June 2023 at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html ; 2022.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP): COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19, vol. Accessed 30th January 2022 at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-the-longterm-effects-of-covid19-pdf-51035515742 . London: NICE; 2022.

Organization WH: Post Covid-19 Condition (updated 7th December 2022), vol. Accessed 2nd June 2023 at https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/post-covid-19-condition#:~:text=It%20is%20defined%20as%20the,months%20with%20no%20other%20explanation . Geneva: WHO; 2022.

Office for National Statistics: Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK: 31st March 2023. London: ONS. Accessed 30th May 2023 at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/alldatarelatingtoprevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk ; 2023.

Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P: Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. bmj 2021;374.

Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, Graham MS, Penfold RS, Bowyer RC, Pujol JC, Klaser K, Antonelli M, Canas LS. Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):626–31.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Reese JT, Blau H, Casiraghi E, Bergquist T, Loomba JJ, Callahan TJ, Laraway B, Antonescu C, Coleman B, Gargano M: Generalisable long COVID subtypes: findings from the NIH N3C and RECOVER programmes. EBioMedicine 2023;87.

Thaweethai T, Jolley SE, Karlson EW, Levitan EB, Levy B, McComsey GA, McCorkell L, Nadkarni GN, Parthasarathy S, Singh U. Development of a definition of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA. 2023;329(22):1934–46.

Brown DA, O’Brien KK. Conceptualising Long COVID as an episodic health condition. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(9): e007004.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tate WP, Walker MO, Peppercorn K, Blair AL, Edgar CD. Towards a Better Understanding of the Complexities of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long COVID. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5124.

Ahmed H, Patel K, Greenwood DC, Halpin S, Lewthwaite P, Salawu A, Eyre L, Breen A, Connor RO, Jones A. Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2020;52(5):1–11.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organisation: Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: Interim guidance (13th March 2020). Geneva: WHO. Accessed 3rd January 2023 at https://t.co/JpNdP8LcV8?amp=1 ; 2020.

Rushforth A, Ladds E, Wieringa S, Taylor S, Husain L, Greenhalgh T: Long Covid – the illness narratives. Under review for Sociology of Health and Illness 2021.

Russell D, Spence NJ. Chase J-AD, Schwartz T, Tumminello CM, Bouldin E: Support amid uncertainty: Long COVID illness experiences and the role of online communities. SSM-Qual Res Health. 2022;2: 100177.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ziauddeen N, Gurdasani D, O’Hara ME, Hastie C, Roderick P, Yao G, Alwan NA. Characteristics and impact of Long Covid: Findings from an online survey. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3): e0264331.

Evans RA, McAuley H, Harrison EM, Shikotra A, Singapuri A, Sereno M, Elneima O, Docherty AB, Lone NI, Leavy OC. Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(11):1275–87.

Sykes DL, Holdsworth L, Jawad N, Gunasekera P, Morice AH, Crooks MG. Post-COVID-19 symptom burden: what is long-COVID and how should we manage it? Lung. 2021;199(2):113–9.

Altmann DM, Whettlock EM, Liu S, Arachchillage DJ, Boyton RJ: The immunology of long COVID. Nat Rev Immunol 2023:1–17.

Klein J, Wood J, Jaycox J, Dhodapkar RM, Lu P, Gehlhausen JR, Tabachnikova A, Greene K, Tabacof L, Malik AA et al : Distinguishing features of Long COVID identified through immune profiling. Nature 2023.

Chen B, Julg B, Mohandas S, Bradfute SB. Viral persistence, reactivation, and mechanisms of long COVID. Elife. 2023;12: e86015.

Wang C, Ramasamy A, Verduzco-Gutierrez M, Brode WM, Melamed E. Acute and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a review of risk factors and social determinants. Virol J. 2023;20(1):124.

Cervia-Hasler C, Brüningk SC, Hoch T, Fan B, Muzio G, Thompson RC, Ceglarek L, Meledin R, Westermann P, Emmenegger M et al Persistent complement dysregulation with signs of thromboinflammation in active Long Covid Science 2024;383(6680):eadg7942.

Sivan M, Greenhalgh T, Darbyshire JL, Mir G, O’Connor RJ, Dawes H, Greenwood D, O’Connor D, Horton M, Petrou S. LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5): e063505.

Rushforth A, Ladds E, Wieringa S, Taylor S, Husain L, Greenhalgh T. Long covid–the illness narratives. Soc Sci Med. 2021;286: 114326.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19, vol. Accessed 4th October 2023 at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-the-longterm-effects-of-covid19-pdf-51035515742 . London: NICE 2020.

NHS England: Long COVID: the NHS plan for 2021/22. London: NHS England. Accessed 2nd August 2022 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/documents/long-covid-the-nhs-plan-for-2021-22/ ; 2021.

NHS England: NHS to offer ‘long covid’ sufferers help at specialist centres. London: NHS England. Accessed 10th October 2020 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-to-offer-long-covid-help/ ; 2020 (7th October).

NHS England: The NHS plan for improving long COVID services, vol. Acessed 4th February 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/the-nhs-plan-for-improving-long-covid-services/ .London: Gov.uk; 2022.

NHS England: Commissioning guidance for post-COVID services for adults, children and young people, vol. Accessed 6th February 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/commissioning-guidance-for-post-covid-services-for-adults-children-and-young-people/ . London: gov.uk; 2023.

National Institute for Health Research: Researching Long Covid: Adressing a new global health challenge, vol. Accessed 9.8.23 at https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/collection/researching-long-covid-addressing-a-new-global-health-challenge/ . London: NIHR; 2022.

Subbaraman N. NIH will invest $1 billion to study long COVID. Nature. 2021;591(7850):356–356.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment and monitoring. Ann Arbor: Michigan; 1980.

Laffel G, Blumenthal D. The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations. JAMA. 1989;262(20):2869–73.

Maxwell RJ. Quality assessment in health. BMJ. 1984;288(6428):1470.

Berwick DM, Godfrey BA, Roessner J. Curing health care: New strategies for quality improvement. The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ). 1991;13(5):65–6.

Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1986.

Argyris C: Increasing leadership effectiveness: New York: J. Wiley; 1976.

Juran JM: A history of managing for quality: The evolution, trends, and future directions of managing for quality: Asq Press; 1995.

Institute of Medicine (US): Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

McNab D, McKay J, Shorrock S, Luty S, Bowie P. Development and application of ‘systems thinking’ principles for quality improvement. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9(1): e000714.

Sampath B, Rakover J, Baldoza K, Mate K, Lenoci-Edwards J, Barker P. ​Whole-System Quality: A Unified Approach to Building Responsive, Resilient Health Care Systems. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Immprovement; 2021.

Batalden PB, Davidoff F: What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? In . , vol. 16: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2007: 2–3.

Baker G. Collaborating for improvement: the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s breakthrough series. New Med. 1997;1:5–8.

Plsek PE. Collaborating across organizational boundaries to improve the quality of care. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(2):85–95.

Ayers LR, Beyea SC, Godfrey MM, Harper DC, Nelson EC, Batalden PB. Quality improvement learning collaboratives. Qual Manage Healthcare. 2005;14(4):234–47.

Brandrud AS, Schreiner A, Hjortdahl P, Helljesen GS, Nyen B, Nelson EC. Three success factors for continual improvement in healthcare: an analysis of the reports of improvement team members. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(3):251–9.

Dückers ML, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP. Exploring the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: modelling relations between conditions, applied changes and outcomes. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–12.

Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2013;91(2):354–94.

Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M, Pearson ML, Wu S-Y, Mendel P, Cretin S, Rosen M: The role of perceived team effectiveness in improving chronic illness care. Medical Care 2004:1040–1048.

Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary PD. What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Joint Commission J Qual Safety. 2004;30:25–33.

Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, Huijsman R, Grol RP. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–4.

Hulscher ME, Schouten LM, Grol RP, Buchan H. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(1):19–31.

Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):167–205.

Bate P, Mendel P, Robert G: Organizing for quality: the improvement journeys of leading hospitals in Europe and the United States: CRC Press; 2007.

Andersson-Gäre B, Neuhauser D. The health care quality journey of Jönköping County Council. Sweden Qual Manag Health Care. 2007;16(1):2–9.

Törnblom O, Stålne K, Kjellström S. Analyzing roles and leadership in organizations from cognitive complexity and meaning-making perspectives. Behav Dev. 2018;23(1):63.

Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11): e1000360.

Wells S, Tamir O, Gray J, Naidoo D, Bekhit M, Goldmann D. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(3):226–40.

Landon BE, Wilson IB, McInnes K, Landrum MB, Hirschhorn L, Marsden PV, Gustafson D, Cleary PD. Effects of a quality improvement collaborative on the outcome of care of patients with HIV infection: the EQHIV study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(11):887–96.

Mittman BS. Creating the evidence base for quality improvement collaboratives. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(11):897–901.

Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):961–4.

Bungay H. Cancer and health policy: the postcode lottery of care. Soc Policy Admin. 2005;39(1):35–48.

Wennberg JE, Cooper MM: The Quality of Medical Care in the United States: A Report on the Medicare Program: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999: The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences [Internet]. 1999.

DaSilva P, Gray JM. English lessons: can publishing an atlas of variation stimulate the discussion on appropriateness of care? Med J Aust. 2016;205(S10):S5–7.

Gray WK, Day J, Briggs TW, Harrison S. Identifying unwarranted variation in clinical practice between healthcare providers in England: Analysis of administrative data over time for the Getting It Right First Time programme. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(4):743–50.

Wabe N, Thomas J, Scowen C, Eigenstetter A, Lindeman R, Georgiou A. The NSW Pathology Atlas of Variation: Part I—Identifying Emergency Departments With Outlying Laboratory Test-Ordering Practices. Ann Emerg Med. 2021;78(1):150–62.

Jamal A, Babazono A, Li Y, Fujita T, Yoshida S, Kim SA. Elucidating variations in outcomes among older end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5): e0252196.

Sutherland K, Levesque JF. Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: definitions and proposal of an analytic framework. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(3):687–96.

Tanenbaum SJ. Reducing variation in health care: The rhetorical politics of a policy idea. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(1):5–26.

Atsma F, Elwyn G, Westert G. Understanding unwarranted variation in clinical practice: a focus on network effects, reflective medicine and learning health systems. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;32(4):271–4.

Horbar JD, Rogowski J, Plsek PE, Delmore P, Edwards WH, Hocker J, Kantak AD, Lewallen P, Lewis W, Lewit E. Collaborative quality improvement for neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics. 2001;107(1):14–22.

Van Maanen J: Tales of the field: On writing ethnography: University of Chicago Press; 2011.

Golden-Biddle K, Locke K. Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organ Sci. 1993;4(4):595–616.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12:436–45.

Willis R. The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qual Res. 2019;19(4):471–80.

Vojdani A, Vojdani E, Saidara E, Maes M. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection, EBV, HHV-6 and other factors may contribute to inflammation and autoimmunity in long COVID. Viruses. 2023;15(2):400.

Choutka J, Jansari V, Hornig M, Iwasaki A. Unexplained post-acute infection syndromes. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):911–23.

Connors JM, Ariëns RAS. Uncertainties about the roles of anticoagulation and microclots in postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. J Thromb Haemost. 2023;21(10):2697–701.

Patel MA, Knauer MJ, Nicholson M, Daley M, Van Nynatten LR, Martin C, Patterson EK, Cepinskas G, Seney SL, Dobretzberger V. Elevated vascular transformation blood biomarkers in Long-COVID indicate angiogenesis as a key pathophysiological mechanism. Mol Med. 2022;28(1):122.

Greenhalgh T, Sivan M, Delaney B, Evans R, Milne R: Long covid—an update for primary care. bmj 2022, 378.

Parkin A, Davison J, Tarrant R, Ross D, Halpin S, Simms A, Salman R, Sivan M. A multidisciplinary NHS COVID-19 service to manage post-COVID-19 syndrome in the community. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2021;12:21501327211010990.

NHS England: COVID-19 Post-Covid Assessment Service, vol. Accessed 5th March 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-post-covid-assessment-service/ . London: NHS England; 2024.

Sivan M, Halpin S, Gee J, Makower S, Parkin A, Ross D, Horton M, O'Connor R: The self-report version and digital format of the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRS) for Long Covid or Post-COVID syndrome assessment and monitoring. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil 2021;20(3).

The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

Sivan M, Preston NJ, Parkin A, Makower S, Gee J, Ross D, Tarrant R, Davison J, Halpin S, O’Connor RJ, et al. The modified COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRSm) patient-reported outcome measure for Long Covid or Post-COVID syndrome. J Med Virol. 2022;94(9):4253–64.

Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 1991;14(6):540–5.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

Van Dixhoorn J, Duivenvoorden H. Efficacy of Nijmegen Questionnaire in recognition of the hyperventilation syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29(2):199–206.

Evans R, Pick A, Lardner R, Masey V, Smith N, Greenhalgh T: Breathing difficulties after covid-19: a guide for primary care. BMJ 2023;381.

Van Dixhoorn J, Folgering H: The Nijmegen Questionnaire and dysfunctional breathing. In . , vol. 1: Eur Respiratory Soc; 2015.

Courtney R, Greenwood KM. Preliminary investigation of a measure of dysfunctional breathing symptoms: The Self Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire (SEBQ). Int J Osteopathic Med. 2009;12(4):121–7.

Espinosa-Gonzalez A, Master H, Gall N, Halpin S, Rogers N, Greenhalgh T. Orthostatic tachycardia after covid-19. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2023;380:e073488–e073488.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bungo M, Charles J, Johnson P Jr. Cardiovascular deconditioning during space flight and the use of saline as a countermeasure to orthostatic intolerance. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1985;56(10):985–90.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sivan M, Corrado J, Mathias C. The Adapted Autonomic Profile (Aap) Home-Based Test for the Evaluation of Neuro-Cardiovascular Autonomic Dysfunction. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil. 2022;3:10–13. https://doi.org/10.47795/QKBU46715 .

Lee C, Greenwood DC, Master H, Balasundaram K, Williams P, Scott JT, Wood C, Cooper R, Darbyshire JL, Gonzalez AE. Prevalence of orthostatic intolerance in long covid clinic patients and healthy volunteers: A multicenter study. J Med Virol. 2024;96(3): e29486.

World Health Organization: Clinical management of covid-19 - living guideline. Geneva: WHO. Accessed 4th October 2023 at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021-2 ; 2023.

Ahmed I, Mustafaoglu R, Yeldan I, Yasaci Z, Erhan B: Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation approaches on dyspnea, exercise capacity, fatigue, lung functions and quality of life in patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022.

Dillen H, Bekkering G, Gijsbers S, Vande Weygaerde Y, Van Herck M, Haesevoets S, Bos DAG, Li A, Janssens W, Gosselink R, et al. Clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation in ambulatory care for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):419.

Learmonth Y, Dlugonski D, Pilutti L, Sandroff B, Klaren R, Motl R. Psychometric properties of the fatigue severity scale and the modified fatigue impact scale. J Neurol Sci. 2013;331(1–2):102–7.

Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness T herapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):1–7.

Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, Greist JM. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180(5):461–4.

Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, Wallace E. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993;37(2):147–53.

Shahid A, Wilkinson K, Marcu S, Shapiro CM: Visual analogue scale to evaluate fatigue severity (VAS-F). In: STOP, THAT and one hundred other sleep scales . edn.: Springer; 2011:399–402.

Parker M, Sawant HB, Flannery T, Tarrant R, Shardha J, Bannister R, Ross D, Halpin S, Greenwood DC, Sivan M. Effect of using a structured pacing protocol on post-exertional symptom exacerbation and health status in a longitudinal cohort with the post-COVID-19 syndrome. J Med Virol. 2023;95(1): e28373.

Kenny RA, Bayliss J, Ingram A, Sutton R. Head-up tilt: a useful test for investigating unexplained syncope. The Lancet. 1986;327(8494):1352–5.

Drury MOC: Science and Psychology. In: The selected writings of Maurice O’Connor Drury: On Wittgenstein, philosophy, religion and psychiatry. edn.: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017.

Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.

Mongtomery K: How doctors think: Clinical judgment and the practice of medicine: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to clinic staff for allowing us to study their work and to patients for allowing us to sit in on their consultations. We also thank the funder of LOCOMOTION (National Institute for Health Research) and the patient advisory group for lived experience input.

This research is supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Long Covid Research Scheme grant (Ref COV-LT-0016).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK

Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie L. Darbyshire & Emma Ladds

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

LOCOMOTION Patient Advisory Group and Lived Experience Representative, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TG conceptualized the overall study, led the empirical work, supported the quality improvement meetings, conducted the ethnographic visits, led the data analysis, developed the theorization and wrote the first draft of the paper. JLD organized and led the quality improvement meetings, supported site-based researchers to collect and analyse data on their clinic, collated and summarized data on quality topics, and liaised with the patient advisory group. CL conceptualized and led the quality topic on POTS, including exploring reasons for some clinics’ reluctance to conduct testing and collating and analysing the NASA Lean Test data across all sites. EL assisted with ethnographic visits, data analysis, and theorization. JCS contributed lived experience of long covid and also clinical experience as an occupational therapist; she liaised with the wider patient advisory group, whose independent (patient-led) audit of long covid clinics informed the quality improvement prioritization exercise. All authors provided extensive feedback on drafts and contributed to discussions and refinements. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trisha Greenhalgh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276) and subsequent amendments.

Patient participants in clinic were approached by the clinician (without the researcher present) and gave verbal informed consent for a clinically qualified researcher to observe the consultation. If they consented, the researcher was then invited to sit in. A written record was made in field notes of this verbal consent. It was impractical to seek consent from patients whose cases were discussed (usually with very brief clinical details) in online MDTs. Therefore, clinical case examples from MDTs presented in the paper are fictionalized cases constructed from multiple real cases and with key clinical details changed (for example, comorbidities were replaced with different conditions which would produce similar symptoms). All fictionalized cases were checked by our patient advisory group to check that they were plausible to lived experience experts.

Consent for publication

No direct patient cases are reported in this manuscript. For details of how the fictionalized cases were constructed and validated, see “Consent to participate” above.

Competing interests

TG was a member of the UK National Long Covid Task Force 2021–2023 and on the Oversight Group for the NICE Guideline on Long Covid 2021–2022. She is a member of Independent SAGE.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Greenhalgh, T., Darbyshire, J.L., Lee, C. et al. What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography. BMC Med 22 , 159 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03371-6

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 15 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03371-6

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

• Post-covid-19 syndrome
• Quality improvement
• Breakthrough collaboratives
• Warranted variation
• Unwarranted variation
• Improvement science
• Ethnography
• Idiographic reasoning
• Nomothetic reasoning

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

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