abstract in research qualitative

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 3. The Abstract
• 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

An abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 300 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: 1) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated; 2) the basic design of the study; 3) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, 4) a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

Writing an Abstract. The Writing Center. Clarion University, 2009; Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper. The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-first Century . Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, 2010;

Importance of a Good Abstract

Sometimes your professor will ask you to include an abstract, or general summary of your work, with your research paper. The abstract allows you to elaborate upon each major aspect of the paper and helps readers decide whether they want to read the rest of the paper. Therefore, enough key information [e.g., summary results, observations, trends, etc.] must be included to make the abstract useful to someone who may want to examine your work.

How do you know when you have enough information in your abstract? A simple rule-of-thumb is to imagine that you are another researcher doing a similar study. Then ask yourself: if your abstract was the only part of the paper you could access, would you be happy with the amount of information presented there? Does it tell the whole story about your study? If the answer is "no" then the abstract likely needs to be revised.

Farkas, David K. “A Scheme for Understanding and Writing Summaries.” Technical Communication 67 (August 2020): 45-60;  How to Write a Research Abstract. Office of Undergraduate Research. University of Kentucky; Staiger, David L. “What Today’s Students Need to Know about Writing Abstracts.” International Journal of Business Communication January 3 (1966): 29-33; Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2009.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Types of Abstracts

To begin, you need to determine which type of abstract you should include with your paper. There are four general types.

Critical Abstract A critical abstract provides, in addition to describing main findings and information, a judgment or comment about the study’s validity, reliability, or completeness. The researcher evaluates the paper and often compares it with other works on the same subject. Critical abstracts are generally 400-500 words in length due to the additional interpretive commentary. These types of abstracts are used infrequently.

Descriptive Abstract A descriptive abstract indicates the type of information found in the work. It makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. It does incorporate key words found in the text and may include the purpose, methods, and scope of the research. Essentially, the descriptive abstract only describes the work being summarized. Some researchers consider it an outline of the work, rather than a summary. Descriptive abstracts are usually very short, 100 words or less. Informative Abstract The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the researcher presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the paper. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract [purpose, methods, scope] but it also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is usually no more than 300 words in length.

Highlight Abstract A highlight abstract is specifically written to attract the reader’s attention to the study. No pretense is made of there being either a balanced or complete picture of the paper and, in fact, incomplete and leading remarks may be used to spark the reader’s interest. In that a highlight abstract cannot stand independent of its associated article, it is not a true abstract and, therefore, rarely used in academic writing.

II.  Writing Style

Use the active voice when possible , but note that much of your abstract may require passive sentence constructions. Regardless, write your abstract using concise, but complete, sentences. Get to the point quickly and always use the past tense because you are reporting on a study that has been completed.

Abstracts should be formatted as a single paragraph in a block format and with no paragraph indentations. In most cases, the abstract page immediately follows the title page. Do not number the page. Rules set forth in writing manual vary but, in general, you should center the word "Abstract" at the top of the page with double spacing between the heading and the abstract. The final sentences of an abstract concisely summarize your study’s conclusions, implications, or applications to practice and, if appropriate, can be followed by a statement about the need for additional research revealed from the findings.

Composing Your Abstract

Although it is the first section of your paper, the abstract should be written last since it will summarize the contents of your entire paper. A good strategy to begin composing your abstract is to take whole sentences or key phrases from each section of the paper and put them in a sequence that summarizes the contents. Then revise or add connecting phrases or words to make the narrative flow clearly and smoothly. Note that statistical findings should be reported parenthetically [i.e., written in parentheses].

Before handing in your final paper, check to make sure that the information in the abstract completely agrees with what you have written in the paper. Think of the abstract as a sequential set of complete sentences describing the most crucial information using the fewest necessary words. The abstract SHOULD NOT contain:

• A catchy introductory phrase, provocative quote, or other device to grab the reader's attention,
• Lengthy background or contextual information,
• Redundant phrases, unnecessary adverbs and adjectives, and repetitive information;
• Acronyms or abbreviations,
• References to other literature [say something like, "current research shows that..." or "studies have indicated..."],
• Using ellipticals [i.e., ending with "..."] or incomplete sentences,
• Jargon or terms that may be confusing to the reader,
• Citations to other works, and
• Any sort of image, illustration, figure, or table, or references to them.

Abstract. Writing Center. University of Kansas; Abstract. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Abstracts. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Borko, Harold and Seymour Chatman. "Criteria for Acceptable Abstracts: A Survey of Abstracters' Instructions." American Documentation 14 (April 1963): 149-160; Abstracts. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Hartley, James and Lucy Betts. "Common Weaknesses in Traditional Abstracts in the Social Sciences." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (October 2009): 2010-2018; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing, 2010; Procter, Margaret. The Abstract. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Riordan, Laura. “Mastering the Art of Abstracts.” The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 115 (January 2015 ): 41-47; Writing Report Abstracts. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Abstracts. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Koltay, Tibor. Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-First Century . Oxford, UK: 2010; Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper. The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Writing Tip

Never Cite Just the Abstract!

Citing to just a journal article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, go to the USC Libraries main page and enter the title of the article [NOT the title of the journal]. If the Libraries have a subscription to the journal, the article should appear with a link to the full-text or to the journal publisher page where you can get the article. If the article does not appear, try searching Google Scholar using the link on the USC Libraries main page. If you still can't find the article after doing this, contact a librarian or you can request it from our free i nterlibrary loan and document delivery service .

• << Previous: Research Process Video Series
• Next: Executive Summary >>
• Last Updated: Apr 20, 2024 2:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Abstract Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide With Tips & Examples

Table of Contents

Introduction

Abstracts of research papers have always played an essential role in describing your research concisely and clearly to researchers and editors of journals, enticing them to continue reading. However, with the widespread availability of scientific databases, the need to write a convincing abstract is more crucial now than during the time of paper-bound manuscripts.

Abstracts serve to "sell" your research and can be compared with your "executive outline" of a resume or, rather, a formal summary of the critical aspects of your work. Also, it can be the "gist" of your study. Since most educational research is done online, it's a sign that you have a shorter time for impressing your readers, and have more competition from other abstracts that are available to be read.

The APCI (Academic Publishing and Conferences International) articulates 12 issues or points considered during the final approval process for conferences & journals and emphasises the importance of writing an abstract that checks all these boxes (12 points). Since it's the only opportunity you have to captivate your readers, you must invest time and effort in creating an abstract that accurately reflects the critical points of your research.

With that in mind, let’s head over to understand and discover the core concept and guidelines to create a substantial abstract. Also, learn how to organise the ideas or plots into an effective abstract that will be awe-inspiring to the readers you want to reach.

What is Abstract? Definition and Overview

The word "Abstract' is derived from Latin abstractus meaning "drawn off." This etymological meaning also applies to art movements as well as music, like abstract expressionism. In this context, it refers to the revealing of the artist's intention.

Based on this, you can determine the meaning of an abstract: A condensed research summary. It must be self-contained and independent of the body of the research. However, it should outline the subject, the strategies used to study the problem, and the methods implemented to attain the outcomes. The specific elements of the study differ based on the area of study; however, together, it must be a succinct summary of the entire research paper.

Abstracts are typically written at the end of the paper, even though it serves as a prologue. In general, the abstract must be in a position to:

• Describe the paper.
• Identify the problem or the issue at hand.
• Explain to the reader the research process, the results you came up with, and what conclusion you've reached using these results.
• Include keywords to guide your strategy and the content.

Furthermore, the abstract you submit should not reflect upon any of  the following elements:

• Examine, analyse or defend the paper or your opinion.
• What you want to study, achieve or discover.
• Be redundant or irrelevant.

After reading an abstract, your audience should understand the reason - what the research was about in the first place, what the study has revealed and how it can be utilised or can be used to benefit others. You can understand the importance of abstract by knowing the fact that the abstract is the most frequently read portion of any research paper. In simpler terms, it should contain all the main points of the research paper.

What is the Purpose of an Abstract?

Abstracts are typically an essential requirement for research papers; however, it's not an obligation to preserve traditional reasons without any purpose. Abstracts allow readers to scan the text to determine whether it is relevant to their research or studies. The abstract allows other researchers to decide if your research paper can provide them with some additional information. A good abstract paves the interest of the audience to pore through your entire paper to find the content or context they're searching for.

Abstract writing is essential for indexing, as well. The Digital Repository of academic papers makes use of abstracts to index the entire content of academic research papers. Like meta descriptions in the regular Google outcomes, abstracts must include keywords that help researchers locate what they seek.

Types of Abstract

Informative and Descriptive are two kinds of abstracts often used in scientific writing.

A descriptive abstract gives readers an outline of the author's main points in their study. The reader can determine if they want to stick to the research work, based on their interest in the topic. An abstract that is descriptive is similar to the contents table of books, however, the format of an abstract depicts complete sentences encapsulated in one paragraph. It is unfortunate that the abstract can't be used as a substitute for reading a piece of writing because it's just an overview, which omits readers from getting an entire view. Also, it cannot be a way to fill in the gaps the reader may have after reading this kind of abstract since it does not contain crucial information needed to evaluate the article.

To conclude, a descriptive abstract is:

• A simple summary of the task, just summarises the work, but some researchers think it is much more of an outline
• Typically, the length is approximately 100 words. It is too short when compared to an informative abstract.
• A brief explanation but doesn't provide the reader with the complete information they need;
• An overview that omits conclusions and results

An informative abstract is a comprehensive outline of the research. There are times when people rely on the abstract as an information source. And the reason is why it is crucial to provide entire data of particular research. A well-written, informative abstract could be a good substitute for the remainder of the paper on its own.

A well-written abstract typically follows a particular style. The author begins by providing the identifying information, backed by citations and other identifiers of the papers. Then, the major elements are summarised to make the reader aware of the study. It is followed by the methodology and all-important findings from the study. The conclusion then presents study results and ends the abstract with a comprehensive summary.

In a nutshell, an informative abstract:

• Has a length that can vary, based on the subject, but is not longer than 300 words.
• Contains all the content-like methods and intentions
• Offers evidence and possible recommendations.

Informative Abstracts are more frequent than descriptive abstracts because of their extensive content and linkage to the topic specifically. You should select different types of abstracts to papers based on their length: informative abstracts for extended and more complex abstracts and descriptive ones for simpler and shorter research papers.

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract?

• A good abstract clearly defines the goals and purposes of the study.
• It should clearly describe the research methodology with a primary focus on data gathering, processing, and subsequent analysis.
• A good abstract should provide specific research findings.
• It presents the principal conclusions of the systematic study.
• It should be concise, clear, and relevant to the field of study.
• A well-designed abstract should be unifying and coherent.
• It is easy to grasp and free of technical jargon.
• It is written impartially and objectively.

What are the various sections of an ideal Abstract?

By now, you must have gained some concrete idea of the essential elements that your abstract needs to convey . Accordingly, the information is broken down into six key sections of the abstract, which include:

An Introduction or Background

Research methodology, objectives and goals, limitations.

Let's go over them in detail.

The introduction, also known as background, is the most concise part of your abstract. Ideally, it comprises a couple of sentences. Some researchers only write one sentence to introduce their abstract. The idea behind this is to guide readers through the key factors that led to your study.

It's understandable that this information might seem difficult to explain in a couple of sentences. For example, think about the following two questions like the background of your study:

• What is currently available about the subject with respect to the paper being discussed?
• What isn't understood about this issue? (This is the subject of your research)

While writing the abstract’s introduction, make sure that it is not lengthy. Because if it crosses the word limit, it may eat up the words meant to be used for providing other key information.

Research methodology is where you describe the theories and techniques you used in your research. It is recommended that you describe what you have done and the method you used to get your thorough investigation results. Certainly, it is the second-longest paragraph in the abstract.

In the research methodology section, it is essential to mention the kind of research you conducted; for instance, qualitative research or quantitative research (this will guide your research methodology too) . If you've conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection method, sampling techniques, and duration of the study. Likewise, your abstract should reflect observational data, opinions, questionnaires (especially the non-numerical data) if you work on qualitative research.

The research objectives and goals speak about what you intend to accomplish with your research. The majority of research projects focus on the long-term effects of a project, and the goals focus on the immediate, short-term outcomes of the research. It is possible to summarise both in just multiple sentences.

In stating your objectives and goals, you give readers a picture of the scope of the study, its depth and the direction your research ultimately follows. Your readers can evaluate the results of your research against the goals and stated objectives to determine if you have achieved the goal of your research.

In the end, your readers are more attracted by the results you've obtained through your study. Therefore, you must take the time to explain each relevant result and explain how they impact your research. The results section exists as the longest in your abstract, and nothing should diminish its reach or quality.

One of the most important things you should adhere to is to spell out details and figures on the results of your research.

Instead of making a vague assertion such as, "We noticed that response rates varied greatly between respondents with high incomes and those with low incomes", Try these: "The response rate was higher for high-income respondents than those with lower incomes (59 30 percent vs. 30 percent in both cases; P<0.01)."

You're likely to encounter certain obstacles during your research. It could have been during data collection or even during conducting the sample . Whatever the issue, it's essential to inform your readers about them and their effects on the research.

Research limitations offer an opportunity to suggest further and deep research. If, for instance, you were forced to change for convenient sampling and snowball samples because of difficulties in reaching well-suited research participants, then you should mention this reason when you write your research abstract. In addition, a lack of prior studies on the subject could hinder your research.

Your conclusion should include the same number of sentences to wrap the abstract as the introduction. The majority of researchers offer an idea of the consequences of their research in this case.

Your conclusion should include three essential components:

• A significant take-home message.
• Corresponding important findings.
• The Interpretation.

Even though the conclusion of your abstract needs to be brief, it can have an enormous influence on the way that readers view your research. Therefore, make use of this section to reinforce the central message from your research. Be sure that your statements reflect the actual results and the methods you used to conduct your research.

Good Abstract Examples

Abstract example #1.

Children’s consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies.

The abstract:

"Almost all research into the effects of brand placements on children has focused on the brand's attitudes or behavior intentions. Based on the significant differences between attitudes and behavioral intentions on one hand and actual behavior on the other hand, this study examines the impact of placements by brands on children's eating habits. Children aged 6-14 years old were shown an excerpt from the popular film Alvin and the Chipmunks and were shown places for the item Cheese Balls. Three different versions were developed with no placements, one with moderately frequent placements and the third with the highest frequency of placement. The results revealed that exposure to high-frequency places had a profound effect on snack consumption, however, there was no impact on consumer attitudes towards brands or products. The effects were not dependent on the age of the children. These findings are of major importance to researchers studying consumer behavior as well as nutrition experts as well as policy regulators."

Abstract Example #2

Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. The abstract:

"The research conducted in this study investigated the effects of Facebook use on women's moods and body image if the effects are different from an internet-based fashion journal and if the appearance comparison tendencies moderate one or more of these effects. Participants who were female ( N = 112) were randomly allocated to spend 10 minutes exploring their Facebook account or a magazine's website or an appearance neutral control website prior to completing state assessments of body dissatisfaction, mood, and differences in appearance (weight-related and facial hair, face, and skin). Participants also completed a test of the tendency to compare appearances. The participants who used Facebook were reported to be more depressed than those who stayed on the control site. In addition, women who have the tendency to compare appearances reported more facial, hair and skin-related issues following Facebook exposure than when they were exposed to the control site. Due to its popularity it is imperative to conduct more research to understand the effect that Facebook affects the way people view themselves."

Abstract Example #3

The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students

"The cellphone is always present on campuses of colleges and is often utilised in situations in which learning takes place. The study examined the connection between the use of cell phones and the actual grades point average (GPA) after adjusting for predictors that are known to be a factor. In the end 536 students in the undergraduate program from 82 self-reported majors of an enormous, public institution were studied. Hierarchical analysis ( R 2 = .449) showed that use of mobile phones is significantly ( p < .001) and negative (b equal to -.164) connected to the actual college GPA, after taking into account factors such as demographics, self-efficacy in self-regulated learning, self-efficacy to improve academic performance, and the actual high school GPA that were all important predictors ( p < .05). Therefore, after adjusting for other known predictors increasing cell phone usage was associated with lower academic performance. While more research is required to determine the mechanisms behind these results, they suggest the need to educate teachers and students to the possible academic risks that are associated with high-frequency mobile phone usage."

Quick tips on writing a good abstract

There exists a common dilemma among early age researchers whether to write the abstract at first or last? However, it's recommended to compose your abstract when you've completed the research since you'll have all the information to give to your readers. You can, however, write a draft at the beginning of your research and add in any gaps later.

If you find abstract writing a herculean task, here are the few tips to help you with it:

1. Always develop a framework to support your abstract

Before writing, ensure you create a clear outline for your abstract. Divide it into sections and draw the primary and supporting elements in each one. You can include keywords and a few sentences that convey the essence of your message.

2. Review Other Abstracts

Abstracts are among the most frequently used research documents, and thousands of them were written in the past. Therefore, prior to writing yours, take a look at some examples from other abstracts. There are plenty of examples of abstracts for dissertations in the dissertation and thesis databases.

3. Avoid Jargon To the Maximum

When you write your abstract, focus on simplicity over formality. You should  write in simple language, and avoid excessive filler words or ambiguous sentences. Keep in mind that your abstract must be readable to those who aren't acquainted with your subject.

4. Focus on Your Research

It's a given fact that the abstract you write should be about your research and the findings you've made. It is not the right time to mention secondary and primary data sources unless it's absolutely required.

Conclusion: How to Structure an Interesting Abstract?

Abstracts are a short outline of your essay. However, it's among the most important, if not the most important. The process of writing an abstract is not straightforward. A few early-age researchers tend to begin by writing it, thinking they are doing it to "tease" the next step (the document itself). However, it is better to treat it as a spoiler.

The simple, concise style of the abstract lends itself to a well-written and well-investigated study. If your research paper doesn't provide definitive results, or the goal of your research is questioned, so will the abstract. Thus, only write your abstract after witnessing your findings and put your findings in the context of a larger scenario.

The process of writing an abstract can be daunting, but with these guidelines, you will succeed. The most efficient method of writing an excellent abstract is to centre the primary points of your abstract, including the research question and goals methods, as well as key results.

Interested in learning more about dedicated research solutions? Go to the SciSpace product page to find out how our suite of products can help you simplify your research workflows so you can focus on advancing science.

The best-in-class solution is equipped with features such as literature search and discovery, profile management, research writing and formatting, and so much more.

But before you go,

You might also like.

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

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 an Abstract

Expedite peer review, increase search-ability, and set the tone for your study

The abstract is your chance to let your readers know what they can expect from your article. Learn how to write a clear, and concise abstract that will keep your audience reading.

How your abstract impacts editorial evaluation and future readership

After the title , the abstract is the second-most-read part of your article. A good abstract can help to expedite peer review and, if your article is accepted for publication, it’s an important tool for readers to find and evaluate your work. Editors use your abstract when they first assess your article. Prospective reviewers see it when they decide whether to accept an invitation to review. Once published, the abstract gets indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar , as well as library systems and other popular databases. Like the title, your abstract influences keyword search results. Readers will use it to decide whether to read the rest of your article. Other researchers will use it to evaluate your work for inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analysis. It should be a concise standalone piece that accurately represents your research. 

What to include in an abstract

The main challenge you’ll face when writing your abstract is keeping it concise AND fitting in all the information you need. Depending on your subject area the journal may require a structured abstract following specific headings. A structured abstract helps your readers understand your study more easily. If your journal doesn’t require a structured abstract it’s still a good idea to follow a similar format, just present the abstract as one paragraph without headings. 

Background or Introduction – What is currently known? Start with a brief, 2 or 3 sentence, introduction to the research area. 

Objectives or Aims – What is the study and why did you do it? Clearly state the research question you’re trying to answer.

Methods – What did you do? Explain what you did and how you did it. Include important information about your methods, but avoid the low-level specifics. Some disciplines have specific requirements for abstract methods. 

• CONSORT for randomized trials.
• STROBE for observational studies
• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Results – What did you find? Briefly give the key findings of your study. Include key numeric data (including confidence intervals or p values), where possible.

Conclusions – What did you conclude? Tell the reader why your findings matter, and what this could mean for the ‘bigger picture’ of this area of research. 

Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your abstract is keeping it concise AND convering all the information you need to.

• Keep it concise and to the point. Most journals have a maximum word count, so check guidelines before you write the abstract to save time editing it later.
• Write for your audience. Are they specialists in your specific field? Are they cross-disciplinary? Are they non-specialists? If you’re writing for a general audience, or your research could be of interest to the public keep your language as straightforward as possible. If you’re writing in English, do remember that not all of your readers will necessarily be native English speakers.
• Focus on key results, conclusions and take home messages.
• Write your paper first, then create the abstract as a summary.
• Check the journal requirements before you write your abstract, eg. required subheadings.
• Include keywords or phrases to help readers search for your work in indexing databases like PubMed or Google Scholar.
• Double and triple check your abstract for spelling and grammar errors. These kind of errors can give potential reviewers the impression that your research isn’t sound, and can make it easier to find reviewers who accept the invitation to review your manuscript. Your abstract should be a taste of what is to come in the rest of your article.

Don’t

• Sensationalize your research.
• Speculate about where this research might lead in the future.
• Use abbreviations or acronyms (unless absolutely necessary or unless they’re widely known, eg. DNA).
• Repeat yourself unnecessarily, eg. “Methods: We used X technique. Results: Using X technique, we found…”
• Contradict anything in the rest of your manuscript.
• Include content that isn’t also covered in the main manuscript.
• Include citations or references.

Tip: How to edit your work

Editing is challenging, especially if you are acting as both a writer and an editor. Read our guidelines for advice on how to refine your work, including useful tips for setting your intentions, re-review, and consultation with colleagues.

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• 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…

• Our History
• The Council
• Verna Wright Prize
• The Secretariat
• Key Documents and Policies
• 2024 Conference
• Abstract Submission Guidance 2024
• Past Conferences
• Past Keynote Speakers
• Courses and Lectures
• Co-Hosted Events
• External Events
• Research – Presenting Abstracts
• Research Projects
• Research Links
• Research Councils
• Qualitative Research Abstracts
• Fellowships, Studentships and Awards
• Published Abstracts
• Training Awards
• General Links
• Professional Organisations
• University and Research Vacancies
• Newsletters
• Council Reports and Society Forms
• SRR Membership
• Symposia Presentations
• Members Newsletter
• Business Minutes
• Search for:

GUIDANCE ON SUBMISSION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS

General guidance

Authors should refer to the general information and guidelines contained in the Society’s “Guidance for Submission of Abstracts”. The general guidance therein applies to qualitative research abstracts. This includes the maximum permitted limit of 250 words, and the instruction that abstracts should be structured. In keeping with all submissions to the Society, subsequent presentation must reflect and elaborate on the abstract. Research studies or findings not referred to in the abstract should not be presented.

This document contains specific guidance on the content of qualitative research abstracts.

How guidance on content is to be applied by authors and Council.

Council recognises that the nature of qualitative research makes its comprehensive communication within short abstracts a challenge.  Therefore, whilst the key areas to be included within abstracts are set out below, it is recognised that emphasis on each area will vary in different cases, and that not every listed sub-area will be covered.  Certain elements are likely to receive greater attention at the time of presentation than within the abstract.  In particular, presentation of the paper should include sufficient empirical data to allow judgement of the conclusions drawn.

Content of abstracts

• Research question/objective and design: clear statement of the research question/objective and its relevance. Methodological or theoretical perspectives should be clearly outlined.
• Population and sampling: who the subjects were and what sampling strategies were used .
• Methods of data collection: clear exposition of data collection: access, selection, method of collection, type of data, relationship of researcher to subjects/setting (what data were collected, from where/whom, by whom)
• Quality of data and analysis: strategies to enhance quality of data analysis e.g. triangulation, respondent validation; and to enhance validity e.g. attention to negative cases, consideration of alternative explanations, team analysis, peer review panels
• Application of critical thinking to analysis: attention to the influence of the researcher on data collected and on analysis. Critical approach to the status of data collected
• Theoretical and empirical context: evidence that design and analysis take into account and add to previous knowledge
• Conclusions: justified in relation to data collected, sufficient original data presented to substantiate interpretations, reasoned consideration of transferability  to groups/settings beyond those studied

Username or email address  *

Password  *

Remember me Log in

Lost your password?

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research

Patricia Leavy Independent Scholar Kennebunk, ME, USA

A newer edition of this book is available.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This handbook provides a broad introduction to qualitative research to those with little to no background in the subject while simultaneously providing substantive contributions to the field that will be of interest to even the most experienced researchers. The first two sections explore the history of qualitative research, ethical perspectives, and philosophical/theoretical approaches. The next three sections focus on the major methods of qualitative practice, as well as on newer approaches (such as arts-based research and internet research); area studies often excluded (such as museum studies and disaster studies); and mixed methods and participatory methods (such as community-based research). The next section covers key issues including data analysis, interpretation, writing, and assessment. The final section offers a commentary about politics and research and the move toward public scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research is intended for students of all levels, faculty, and researchers across the social sciences.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

In many ways, an abstract is like a trailer of a movie or the synopsis of your favorite book. Its job is to whet the reader’s appetite by sharing important information about your work. After reading a well-written abstract, one should have enough interest to explore the full research thesis. 

So how do you write an interesting abstract that captures the core of your study? First, you need to understand your research objectives and match them with the key results of your study. In this article, we will share some tips for writing an effective abstract, plus samples you can learn from. 

What is an Abstract in Research Writing?

In simple terms, an abstract is a concise write-up that gives an overview of your systematic investigation. According to Grammarly, it is a self-contained summary of a larger work, and it serves as a preview of the bigger document. 

It usually appears at the beginning of your thesis or research paper and helps the reader to have an overview of your work without going into great detail. This means that when someone reads your abstract, it should give them a clear idea of the purpose of your systematic investigation, your problem statement, key results, and any gaps requiring further investigation. 

So how long should your abstract be to capture all of these details? The reality is you don’t need a lot of words to capture key pieces of information in your abstract. Typically, 6–7 sentences made up of 150–250 words should be just right. 

Read: Writing Research Proposals: Tips, Examples & Mistakes

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract? 

• A good abstract clearly states the aims and objectives of the research.
• It outlines the research methodology for data gathering , processing and analysis. 
• A good abstract summarizes specific research results.
• It states the key conclusions of the systematic investigation.
• It is brief yet straight to the point. 
• A good abstract is unified and coherent. 
• It is easy to understand and devoid of technical jargon. 
• It is written in an unbiased and objective manner. 

What is the Purpose of an Abstract? 

Every abstract has two major purposes. First, it communicates the relevance of your systematic investigation to readers. After reading your abstract, people can determine how relevant your study is to their primary or secondary research purpose. 

The second purpose of an abstract is to communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper. Research papers typically run into tens of pages so it takes time to read and digest them. To help readers grasp the core ideas in a systematic investigation, it pays to have a well-written abstract that outlines important information concerning your study. 

In all, your abstract should accurately outline the most important information in your research. Many times, it determines whether people would go ahead to read your dissertation. Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your thesis easily findable.

Learn About: How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

What are the Sections of an Abstract?

You already know the key pieces of information that your abstract should communicate. These details are broken into six important sections of the abstract which are: 

• The Introduction or Background
• Research Methodology
• Aims and Objectives 
• Limitations

Let’s discuss them in detail. 

• The Introduction or Background 

The introduction or background is the shortest part of your abstract and usually consists of 2–3 sentences. In fact, some researchers write a single sentence as the introduction of their abstract. The whole idea here is to take the reader through the important events leading to your research. 

Understandably, this information may appear difficult to convey in a few sentences. To help out, consider answering these two questions in the background to your study : 

• What is already known about the subject, related to the paper in question? 
• What is not known about the subject (this is the focus of your study)? 

As much as possible, ensure that your abstract’s introduction doesn’t eat into the word count for the other key information. 

• Research Methodology 

This is the section where you spell out any theories and methods adopted for your study. Ideally, you should cover what has been done and how you went about it to achieve the results of your systematic investigation. It is usually the second-longest section in the abstract. 

In the research methodology section, you should also state the type of research you embarked on; that is, qualitative research or quantitative research —this will inform your research methods too. If you’ve conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection methods , sampling technique, and duration of your experiment. 

Explore: 21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2021

In the end, readers are most interested in the results you’ve achieved with your study. This means you should take time to outline every relevant outcome and show how they affect your research population . Typically, the results section should be the longest one in your abstract and nothing should compromise its range and quality. 

An important thing you should do here is spelled out facts and figures about research outcomes. Instead of a vague statement like, “we noticed that response rates differed greatly between high-income and low-income respondents”, try this: “The response rate was higher in high-income respondents than in their low-income counterparts (59% vs 30%, respectively; P

• Conclusion 

Like the introduction, your conclusion should contain a few sentences that wrap up your abstract. Most researchers express a theoretical opinion about the implications of their study, here. 

Your conclusion should contain three important elements: 

• The primary take-home message
• The additional findings of importance
• The perspective 

Although the conclusion of your abstract should be short, it has a great impact on how readers perceive your study. So, take advantage of this section to reiterate the core message in your systematic investigation. Also, make sure any statements here reflect the true outcomes and methods of your research. 

• Limitations 

Chances are you must have faced certain challenges in the course of your research—it could be at the data collection phase or during sampling . Whatever these challenges are, it pays to let your readers know about them, and the impact they had on your study. 

For example, if you had to switch to convenience sampling or snowball sampling due to difficulties in contacting well-suited research participants, you should include this in your abstract. Also, a lack of previous studies in the research area could pose a limitation on your study. Research limitations provide an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. 

Research aims and objectives speak to what you want to achieve with your study. Typically, research aims focus on a project’s long-term outcomes while the objectives focus on the immediate, short-term outcome of the investigation. You may summarize both using a single paragraph comprising a few sentences.

Stating your aims and objectives will give readers a clear idea of the scope, depth, and direction that your research will ultimately take. Readers would measure your research outcomes against stated aims and objectives to know if you achieved the purpose of your study. 

Use For Free: Research Form Templates

Abstract Writing Styles and General Guidelines 

Now that you know the different sections plus information that your abstract should contain, let’s look at how to write an abstract for your research paper.

A common question that comes up is, should I write my abstract first or last? It’s best to write your abstract after you’ve finished working on the research because you have full information to present to your readers. However, you can always create a draft at the beginning of your systematic investigation and fill in the gaps later.  

Does writing an abstract seem like a herculean task? Here are a few tips to help out. 

1. Always create a framework for your abstract 

Before you start writing, take time to develop a detailed outline for your abstract. Break it into sections and sketch the main and supporting points for each section. You can list keywords plus 1–2 sentences that capture your core messaging. 

2. Read Other Abstracts 

Abstracts are one of the most common research documents, and thousands of them have been written in time past. So, before writing yours, try to study a couple of samples from others. You can find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases.

3. Steer Clear of Jargon As Much As Possible 

While writing your abstract, emphasize clarity over style. This means you should communicate in simple terms and avoid unnecessary filler words and ambiguous sentences. Remember, your abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic. 

4. Focus on Your Research

It goes without saying that your abstract should be solely focused on your research and what you’ve discovered. It’s not the time to cite primary and secondary data sources unless this is absolutely necessary. 

This doesn’t mean you should ignore the scholarly background of your work. You might include a sentence or two summarizing the scholarly background to show the relevance of your work to a broader debate, but there’s no need to mention specific publications. 

Going further, here are some abstract writing guidelines from the University of Bergen: 

• An abstract briefly explains the salient aspects of the content. 
• Abstracts should be accurate and succinct, self-contained, and readable.  
• The abstract should paraphrase and summarise rather than quote from the paper.
• Abstracts should relate only to the paper to be presented/assessed.

Types of Abstracts with Examples 

According to the University of Adelaide, there are two major types of abstracts written for research purposes. First, we have informative abstracts and descriptive abstracts. 

1. Informative Abstract  

An informative abstract is the more common type of abstract written for academic research. It highlights the most important aspects of your systematic investigation without going into unnecessary or irrelevant details that the reader might not find useful. 

The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of longer work, it may be much less.

In any informative abstract, you’d touch on information like the purpose, method, scope, results, and conclusion of your study. By now, you’re thinking, “this is the type of abstract we’ve been discussing all along”, and you wouldn’t be far from the truth. 

Advantages of Informative Abstracts

• These abstracts save time for both the researcher and the readers. 
• It’s easy to refer to these abstracts as secondary research sources. 

Disadvantages of Informative Abstracts

• These types of abstracts lack personality.

Example of an Informative Abstract

• Sample Informative Abstract Based on Experimental Work From Colorado State University
• Sample Informative Abstract Based on Non-experimental Work From Colorado State University

2. Descriptive Abstract 

A descriptive abstract reads like a synopsis and focuses on enticing the reader with interesting information. They don’t care as much for data and details, and instead read more like overviews that don’t give too much away. 

You’d find descriptive abstracts in artistic criticism pieces and entertainment research as opposed to scientific investigations. This type of abstract makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. They are usually written in 100 words or less. 

Advantages of Descriptive Abstracts

• It gives a very brief overview of the research paper. 
• It is easier to write descriptive abstracts compared to informational abstracts. 

Disadvantages of Descriptive Abstracts

• They are suitable for scientific research. 
• Descriptive abstracts might omit relevant information that deepens your knowledge of the systematic investigation.

Example of Descriptive Abstracts 

• Sample Descriptive Abstract From Colorado State University

FAQs About Writing Abstracts in Research Papers

1. How Long Should an Abstract Be?

A typical abstract should be about six sentences long or less than 150 words. Most universities have specific word count requirements that fall within 150–300 words. 

2. How Do You Start an Abstract Sentence?

There are several ways to start your abstract. Consider the following methods: 

• State a problem or uncertainty
• Make a general statement with the present research action.
• State the purpose or objective of your research
• State a real-world phenomena or a standard practice.

3. Should you cite in an abstract?

While you can refer to information from specific research papers, there’s no need to cite sources in your abstract. Your abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others. 

4. What should not be included in an abstract?

An abstract shouldn’t have numeric references, bibliographies, sections, or even footnotes. 

5. Which tense is used in writing an abstract?

An abstract should be written in the third-person present tense. Use the simple past tense when describing your methodology and specific findings from your study. 

Writing an abstract might appear challenging but with these steps, you should get it right. The easiest approach to writing a good abstract is centering it on key information including your research problem and objectives, methodology, and key results.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• abstract in research papers
• abstract writing
• descriptive abstract
• good abstract
• purpose of abstract
• qualitative research
• quantitative research
• research methodology
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

A comprehensive guide on the definition of research questions, types, importance, good and bad research question examples

15 Reasons to Choose Quantitative over Qualitative Research

This guide tells you everything you need to know about qualitative and quantitative research, it differences,types, when to use it, how...

Extrapolation in Statistical Research: Definition, Examples, Types, Applications

In this article we’ll look at the different types and characteristics of extrapolation, plus how it contrasts to interpolation.

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

How to craft an APA abstract

Last updated

16 December 2023

Reviewed by

An APA abstract is a brief but thorough summary of a scientific paper. It gives readers a clear overview of what the paper is about and what it intends to prove.

The purpose of an abstract is to allow researchers to quickly understand the paper's topic and purpose so they can decide whether it will be useful to them.

• What is the APA style?

APA style is a method of formatting and documentation used by the American Psychological Association. This style is used primarily for papers in the field of education and in the social sciences, including:

Anthropology

What is an abstract in APA format?

Writing an abstract in APA format requires you to conform to the writing rules for APA-style papers, including the following guidelines:

The abstract should be 150–250 words

It should be brief but concise, containing all the paper's main points

The abstract is a separate page that comes after the title page and before the paper's main content

• Key elements of an APA abstract 

While the rules for constructing an APA abstract are straightforward, the process can be challenging. You need to pack a great deal of relevant content into a short piece.

The essential elements of an APA abstract are:

Running header containing the title of the paper and page number

Section label, centered and in bold, containing the word "abstract"

The main content of the abstract, 150–250 words in length and double-spaced

A list of keywords, indented and introduced with the word "keywords" in italics

Essential points to cover in an APA abstract  

When you’re creating your APA abstract, consider the following questions.

What is the main topic the paper is addressing?

People searching for research on your topic will probably be browsing many papers and studies. The way your abstract is crafted will help to determine whether they feel your paper is worth reading.

Are your research methods quantitative or qualitative?

Quantitative research is focused on numbers and statistics, typically gathered from studies and polls where the questions are in yes/no or multiple-choice format.

Qualitative research is based on language and gathered using methods such as interviews and focus groups. It is more detailed and time-consuming to gather than quantitative research but can yield more complex and nuanced results.

Did you use primary or secondary sources?

Another key element is whether your research is based on primary or secondary sources. 

Primary research is data that you or your research team gathered. Secondary research is gathered from existing sources, such as databases or previously published studies.

Is your research descriptive or experimental?

Your research may be descriptive, experimental, or both.

With descriptive research , you’re describing or analyzing existing studies or theories on the topic. You may be using surveys, case studies, or observation to study the topic.

Experimental research studies variables using the scientific method. With an experiment, your objective is to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables (or show the lack of one).

What conclusion did you reach?

Readers will want to know upfront what your paper is claiming or proving. Your APA abstract should give them a condensed version of your conclusions. Summarize your most significant findings.

It's customary to place your findings and conclusion in the final sentence of the abstract. This should be directly related to the main topic of the paper.

What is the relevance of your findings?

Show readers that your paper is a significant contribution to the field. While staying accurate and not overstating your case, boast a bit about why people need to read your paper.

Briefly describe the implications and importance of your findings. You can also point out any further research that is needed concerning this topic.

Did you choose the most appropriate keywords?

Including keywords is useful for indexing if your paper is eventually included in a database. Choose keywords that are relevant to the paper and as specific as possible.

For example, if your paper is about signs of learning disabilities in elementary-age children, your keyword list might include:

Learning disability symptoms

Elementary education

Language-based learning disabilities

Any other terms discussed in the paper

• How to format an APA abstract

Use standard APA formatting with double spacing, 12pt Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins.

Place a running head at the top left-hand side of the page. This is an abbreviated version of the paper's title. Use all capital letters for the running header. This is not usually required for academic papers but is essential if you are submitting the paper for publication. The page number “2” should follow the running header (Page 1 is the title page).

Just under the running head, in the center, place the word "abstract."

Place your list of keywords at the end. The list should be indented and, according to APA guidelines, contain three to five keywords.

• What are the 3 types of abstracts?

There are certain variations in different types of APA abstracts. Here are three of the most common ones.

Experimental or lab report abstracts

An abstract for an experimental or lab report needs to communicate the key purpose and findings of the experiment. Include the following:

Purpose and importance of the experiment

Hypothesis of the experiment

Methods used to test the hypothesis

Summary of the results of the experiment, including whether you proved or rejected the hypothesis

Literature review abstracts

A literature review is a survey of published work on a work of literature. It may be part of a thesis, dissertation, or research paper .

The abstract for a literature review should contain:

A description of your purpose for covering the research topic

Your thesis statement

A description of the sources used in the review

Your conclusions based on the findings

Psychology lab reports

Psychology lab reports are part of the experiment report category. Psychology experiments, however, may contain distinctive elements.

Describe the goal or purpose of the experiment

If the experiment includes human subjects, describe them. Mention the number of participants and what demographic they fit

Describe any tools, equipment, or apparatus you used for the experiment. For example, some experiments use electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain waves. You may have also used tools such as questionnaires , case studies , or naturalistic observation. Describe the procedure and parameters of the experiment.

Summarize your conclusions

• What not to include in an APA abstract

As this section is 250 words maximum, it's important to know what should not be included.

Avoid the following in an APA abstract:

Jargon, acronyms, or abbreviations

Citations. These should appear in the body of the paper.

Lengthy or secondary information. Keep it brief and stick to the main points. Readers should want to read your paper for more detailed information.

Opinions or subjective comments

Anything not covered in the paper

• Guidelines for writing an APA abstract

While an abstract is the shortest section of your paper, it is nevertheless one of the most important parts. It determines whether or not someone decides that the paper is worth reading or not. What follows are some guidelines to keep in mind when creating your APA abstract. 

Focus on your main point. Don't try to fit in multiple conclusions. The idea is to give readers a clear idea of what your main point or conclusion is. On a similar note, be explicit about the implications and significance of your findings. This is what will motivate people to read your paper.

Write the abstract last. Ensure the abstract accurately conveys the content and conclusions of your paper. You may want to start with a rough draft of the abstract, which you can use as an outline to guide you when writing your paper. If you do this, make sure you edit and update the abstract after the full paper is complete.

Proofread your abstract. As the abstract is short and the first part of the paper people will read, it's especially important to make it clear and free of spelling, grammatical, or factual errors. Ask someone in your field to read through it.

Write the abstract for a general audience. While the paper may be aimed at academics, scientists, or specialists in your field, the abstract should be accessible to a broad audience. Minimize jargon and acronyms. This will make the paper easier to find by people looking for information on the topic.

Choose your keywords with care. The more relevant keywords you include, the more searchable your paper will be. Look up papers on comparable topics for guidance.

Follow any specific guidelines that apply to your paper. Requirements for the abstract may differ slightly depending on the topic or guidelines set by a particular instructor or publication.

APA style is commonly used in the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and education.

If you’re writing an abstract in APA style, there are certain conventions to follow. Your readers and people in your industry will expect you to adhere to particular elements of layout, content, and structure.

Follow our advice in this article, and you will be confident that your APA abstract complies with the expected standards and will encourage people to read your full paper.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics.

• Essential points to cover in an APA abstract

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

The Dissertation Abstract: 101

How to write a clear & concise abstract (with examples).

By:   Madeline Fink (MSc) Reviewed By: Derek Jansen (MBA)   | June 2020

So, you’ve (finally) finished your thesis or dissertation or thesis. Now it’s time to write up your abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary). If you’re here, chances are you’re not quite sure what you need to cover in this section, or how to go about writing it. Fear not – we’ll explain it all in plain language , step by step , with clear examples .

Overview: The Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

• What exactly is a dissertation (or thesis) abstract
• What’s the purpose and function of the abstract
• Why is the abstract so important
• How to write a high-quality dissertation abstract
• Example/sample of a quality abstract
• Quick tips to write a high-quality dissertation abstract

What is an abstract?

Simply put, the abstract in a dissertation or thesis is a short (but well structured) summary that outlines the most important points of your research (i.e. the key takeaways). The abstract is usually 1 paragraph or about 300-500 words long (about one page), but but this can vary between universities.

A quick note regarding terminology – strictly speaking, an abstract and an executive summary are two different things when it comes to academic publications. Typically, an abstract only states what the research will be about, but doesn’t explore the findings – whereas an executive summary covers both . However, in the context of a dissertation or thesis, the abstract usually covers both, providing a summary of the full project.

In terms of content, a good dissertation abstract usually covers the following points:

• The purpose of the research (what’s it about and why’s that important)
• The methodology (how you carried out the research)
• The key research findings (what answers you found)
• The implications of these findings (what these answers mean)

We’ll explain each of these in more detail a little later in this post. Buckle up.

What’s the purpose of the abstract?

A dissertation abstract has two main functions:

The first purpose is to  inform potential readers  of the main idea of your research without them having to read your entire piece of work. Specifically, it needs to communicate what your research is about (what were you trying to find out) and what your findings were . When readers are deciding whether to read your dissertation or thesis, the abstract is the first part they’ll consider. 

The second purpose of the abstract is to  inform search engines and dissertation databases  as they index your dissertation or thesis. The keywords and phrases in your abstract (as well as your keyword list) will often be used by these search engines to categorize your work and make it accessible to users. 

Simply put, your abstract is your shopfront display window – it’s what passers-by (both human and digital) will look at before deciding to step inside. 

Why’s it so important?

The short answer – because most people don’t have time to read your full dissertation or thesis! Time is money, after all…

If you think back to when you undertook your literature review , you’ll quickly realise just how important abstracts are! Researchers reviewing the literature on any given topic face a mountain of reading, so they need to optimise their approach. A good dissertation abstract gives the reader a “TLDR” version of your work – it helps them decide whether to continue to read it in its entirety. So, your abstract, as your shopfront display window, needs to “sell” your research to time-poor readers.

You might be thinking, “but I don’t plan to publish my dissertation”. Even so, you still need to provide an impactful abstract for your markers. Your ability to concisely summarise your work is one of the things they’re assessing, so it’s vital to invest time and effort into crafting an enticing shop window.  

A good abstract also has an added purpose for grad students . As a freshly minted graduate, your dissertation or thesis is often your most significant professional accomplishment and highlights where your unique expertise lies. Potential employers who want to know about this expertise are likely to only read the abstract (as opposed to reading your entire document) – so it needs to be good!

Think about it this way – if your thesis or dissertation were a book, then the abstract would be the blurb on the back cover. For better or worse, readers will absolutely judge your book by its cover .

How to write your abstract

As we touched on earlier, your abstract should cover four important aspects of your research: the purpose , methodology , findings , and implications . Therefore, the structure of your dissertation or thesis abstract needs to reflect these four essentials, in the same order.  Let’s take a closer look at each of them, step by step:

Step 1: Describe the purpose and value of your research

Here you need to concisely explain the purpose and value of your research. In other words, you need to explain what your research set out to discover and why that’s important. When stating the purpose of research, you need to clearly discuss the following:

• What were your research aims and research questions ?
• Why were these aims and questions important?

It’s essential to make this section extremely clear, concise and convincing . As the opening section, this is where you’ll “hook” your reader (marker) in and get them interested in your project. If you don’t put in the effort here, you’ll likely lose their interest.

Step 2: Briefly outline your study’s methodology

In this part of your abstract, you need to very briefly explain how you went about answering your research questions . In other words, what research design and methodology you adopted in your research. Some important questions to address here include:

• Did you take a qualitative or quantitative approach ?
• Who/what did your sample consist of?
• How did you collect your data?
• How did you analyse your data?

Simply put, this section needs to address the “ how ” of your research. It doesn’t need to be lengthy (this is just a summary, after all), but it should clearly address the four questions above.

Need a helping hand?

Step 3: Present your key findings

Next, you need to briefly highlight the key findings . Your research likely produced a wealth of data and findings, so there may be a temptation to ramble here. However, this section is just about the key findings – in other words, the answers to the original questions that you set out to address.

Again, brevity and clarity are important here. You need to concisely present the most important findings for your reader.

Step 4: Describe the implications of your research

Have you ever found yourself reading through a large report, struggling to figure out what all the findings mean in terms of the bigger picture? Well, that’s the purpose of the implications section – to highlight the “so what?” of your research. 

In this part of your abstract, you should address the following questions:

• What is the impact of your research findings on the industry /field investigated? In other words, what’s the impact on the “real world”. 
• What is the impact of your findings on the existing body of knowledge ? For example, do they support the existing research?
• What might your findings mean for future research conducted on your topic?

If you include these four essential ingredients in your dissertation abstract, you’ll be on headed in a good direction.

Example: Dissertation/thesis abstract

Here is an example of an abstract from a master’s thesis, with the purpose , methods , findings , and implications colour coded.

The U.S. citizenship application process is a legal and symbolic journey shaped by many cultural processes. This research project aims to bring to light the experiences of immigrants and citizenship applicants living in Dallas, Texas, to promote a better understanding of Dallas’ increasingly diverse population. Additionally, the purpose of this project is to provide insights to a specific client, the office of Dallas Welcoming Communities and Immigrant Affairs, about Dallas’ lawful permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship and their reasons for pursuing citizenship status . The data for this project was collected through observation at various citizenship workshops and community events, as well as through semi-structured interviews with 14 U.S. citizenship applicants . Reasons for applying for U.S. citizenship discussed in this project include a desire for membership in U.S. society, access to better educational and economic opportunities, improved ease of travel and the desire to vote. Barriers to the citizenship process discussed in this project include the amount of time one must dedicate to the application, lack of clear knowledge about the process and the financial cost of the application. Other themes include the effects of capital on applicant’s experience with the citizenship process, symbolic meanings of citizenship, transnationalism and ideas of deserving and undeserving surrounding the issues of residency and U.S. citizenship. These findings indicate the need for educational resources and mentorship for Dallas-area residents applying for U.S. citizenship, as well as a need for local government programs that foster a sense of community among citizenship applicants and their neighbours.

Practical tips for writing your abstract

When crafting the abstract for your dissertation or thesis, the most powerful technique you can use is to try and put yourself in the shoes of a potential reader. Assume the reader is not an expert in the field, but is interested in the research area. In other words, write for the intelligent layman, not for the seasoned topic expert. 

Start by trying to answer the question “why should I read this dissertation?”

Remember the WWHS.

Make sure you include the  what , why ,  how , and  so what  of your research in your abstract:

• What you studied (who and where are included in this part)
• Why the topic was important
• How you designed your study (i.e. your research methodology)
• So what were the big findings and implications of your research

Keep it simple.

Use terminology appropriate to your field of study, but don’t overload your abstract with big words and jargon that cloud the meaning and make your writing difficult to digest. A good abstract should appeal to all levels of potential readers and should be a (relatively) easy read. Remember, you need to write for the intelligent layman.

Be specific.

When writing your abstract, clearly outline your most important findings and insights and don’t worry about “giving away” too much about your research – there’s no need to withhold information. This is the one way your abstract is not like a blurb on the back of a book – the reader should be able to clearly understand the key takeaways of your thesis or dissertation after reading the abstract. Of course, if they then want more detail, they need to step into the restaurant and try out the menu.

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

17 Comments

This was so very useful, thank you Caroline.

Much appreciated.

This information on Abstract for writing a Dissertation was very helpful to me!

This was so useful. Thank you very much.

This was really useful in writing the abstract for my dissertation. Thank you Caroline.

Very clear and helpful information. Thanks so much!

Fabulous information – succinct, simple information which made my life easier after the most stressful and rewarding 21 months of completing this Masters Degree.

Very clear, specific and to the point guidance. Thanks a lot. Keep helping people 🙂

This was very helpful

Thanks for this nice and helping document.

Waw!!, this is a master piece to say the least.

Very helpful and enjoyable

Thank you for sharing the very important and usful information. Best Bahar

Very clear and more understandable way of writing. I am so interested in it. God bless you dearly!!!!

Really, I found the explanation given of great help. The way the information is presented is easy to follow and capture.

Wow! Thank you so much for opening my eyes. This was so helpful to me.

Thanks for this! Very concise and helpful for my ADHD brain.

I am so grateful for the tips. I am very optimistic in coming up with a winning abstract for my dessertation, thanks to you.

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

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

77k Accesses

28 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

What is Qualitative in Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

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

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Online First
• Locum doctor working and quality and safety: a qualitative study in English primary and secondary care
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8129-8376 Jane Ferguson 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9325-3362 Gemma Stringer 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0696-480X Kieran Walshe 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2972-7911 Thomas Allen 3 , 4 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-8648 Christos Grigoroglou 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2958-915X Darren M Ashcroft 5 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6450-5815 Evangelos Kontopantelis 6 , 7
• 1 Health Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy , University of Birmingham , Birmingham , UK
• 2 Alliance Manchester Business School , University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
• 3 Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care , University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
• 4 Danish Centre for Health Economics , University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark
• 5 NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (PSRC), Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health , University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
• 6 Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences , University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
• 7 NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care , University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Jane Ferguson, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; j.ferguson.1{at}bham.ac.uk

Background The use of temporary doctors, known as locums, has been common practice for managing staffing shortages and maintaining service delivery internationally. However, there has been little empirical research on the implications of locum working for quality and safety. This study aimed to investigate the implications of locum working for quality and safety.

Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 130 participants, including locums, patients, permanently employed doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals with governance and recruitment responsibilities for locums across primary and secondary healthcare organisations in the English NHS. Data were collected between March 2021 and April 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and abductive analysis.

Results Participants described the implications of locum working for quality and safety across five themes: (1) ‘familiarity’ with an organisation and its patients and staff was essential to delivering safe care; (2) ‘balance and stability’ of services reliant on locums were seen as at risk of destabilisation and lacking leadership for quality improvement; (3) ‘discrimination and exclusion’ experienced by locums had negative implications for morale, retention and patient outcomes; (4) ‘defensive practice’ by locums as a result of perceptions of increased vulnerability and decreased support; (5) clinical governance arrangements, which often did not adequately cover locum doctors.

Conclusion Locum working and how locums were integrated into organisations posed some significant challenges and opportunities for patient safety and quality of care. Organisations should take stock of how they work with the locum workforce to improve not only quality and safety but also locum experience and retention.

• Health services research
• Patient safety
• Qualitative research
• Quality improvement

Data availability statement

No data are available.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016699

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Despite longstanding policy concerns about the implications of locum working for quality and safety, there has been little empirical research. Understanding how organisations engage, support and work with locums and how locum doctors integrate and interact with the complex and changing systems in which they work is essential if quality and safety are to be improved.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This qualitative study examines the perspectives of locums, patients and people who work with locums to identify the implications of temporary medical working for quality and safety.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Organisations should examine how they engage, support and work with locums. Organisations and locums need to reflect on whether their practices support a collective approach to patient safety and quality of care.

Introduction

Temporary doctors, often known as locums, are a vital resource that enable healthcare organisations to deliver care by flexing capacity and covering staffing gaps. In the United Kingdom, all doctors, other than those in their first year of training after qualifying, can work as a locum. Locum work can vary from very short-term (a single shift) to longer-term assignments (weeks, months or even sometimes years). Locums find work through various platforms, including locum agencies, online job platforms, professional networks or word of mouth. Locum agencies typically have some governance responsibilities (such as compliance with regulations and licensing requirements), but the extent of these responsibilities varies and the NHS in England has no oversight over how recruitment agencies operate. Despite concerns among policymakers, healthcare providers, professional associations and professional regulators about the implications of locum working for quality and safety and cost, 1–3 there is limited robust empirical research to evidence or support those concerns.

The workforce retention crisis is a significant challenge in healthcare internationally 4–6 and persistent understaffing poses a serious risk to patient safety. 7 8 In the UK, high doctor turnover has been linked to poorer service and health outcomes 9 and has led NHS trusts and general practices (GPs) to be ‘overly reliant’ 3 on temporary staff to fill rota gaps. 10 11 Expenditure on temporary staff in the NHS in England increased from £3.45 billion to £5.2 billion between 2021 and 2022. 3 12 The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan aims to reduce reliance on temporary staff and make substantive employment the most cost-effective and attractive option. 3 However, with the vacancy rate in the NHS projected to increase, 13 locums are likely to continue to be essential to maintaining service provision, especially in shortage specialities such as psychiatry. 14

An obvious implication of locum working is a reduced likelihood of organisational and team integration, 15 familiarity and a shared understanding of ‘the way things are done around here’. 16 Locums are likely to be less familiar with teams and other contextual factors relevant to providing safe and effective care 17 and more likely to be situated on the periphery of organisational structures, teams and governance systems 1 18 Teamwork represents a powerful process to improve patient care, 19 20 and trust, shared understanding, communication and collaboration have been associated with better patient outcomes. 21 22 The ability of healthcare teams to develop and maintain team situational awareness, or a shared perception, comprehension and subsequent projection of what is going on in complex and changing clinical environments, has been described as crucial for patient safety. 23 24 Through participation and working together, 25 teams gain an understanding of the roles, skills and competencies of others to demonstrate ‘collective competence’, 26 27 which is critical for healthcare delivery, 28 29 and existing research on locums suggests a need for better integration into teams to improve quality and safety. 30 31

Context matters for patient safety and quality improvement, 32 33 yet the limited evidence 17 relating to locums practice is largely ‘acontextual’ and tends to ignore the role of the organisation in the integration of temporary staff, focusing instead on the potential risks locums present as individual clinicians, 17 30 which is perhaps unsurprising given the liminal space locums occupy. In the UK, responsibility for the quality and safety of healthcare services is shared primarily between organisations and the individual professionals working within them. 34 Organisations are responsible for creating systems and environments that promote and protect clinical governance and enable all doctors to meet their professional obligations, while doctors are expected to participate in the systems and processes put in place by regulators and organisations to protect and improve patient care. 35 However, NHS trusts and primary care organisations procure the services of locum doctors without assuming the responsibilities normally associated with an employer–employee relationship 30 and locums often struggle to participate in teams and governance systems that were designed for doctors working in conventional employment relationships. 18 36

There is longstanding debate about the role of individual accountability in patient safety and how responsibility is distributed between organisations and individuals. 37 A systems approach reasons that adverse events are likely to occur as a result of system failures rather than individual failures, 38 and patients are protected from mistakes by well designed systems and environments that promote safety cultures. 39 But locums are often positioned at the periphery of these systems, 30 and doctors who are new to and also peripheral to organisations, and organisations who are inexperienced with and unsupportive of locums are unlikely to be able to perform optimally. 40

The aim of this research was to provide evidence on how locum working arrangements impact quality and safety and the implications of locum working for patients, locums and health service organisations in primary and secondary care in the English NHS. Locum doctors are an essential and growing part of the healthcare workforce 1 who have been largely ignored in healthcare workforce research. This research addresses a gap in the empirical evidence base on how locum doctor working arrangements affect quality and safety, and provides, for the first time, an in-depth exploration that includes perspectives from patients, locums and the people they work with.

Study design and setting

A qualitative semi-structured interview and focus group study was conducted with locums, people working with locums, and patients with experience of being treated by locums. Participants were purposively sampled through 11 organisations, including NHS trusts, primary care practices, statutory NHS bodies and locum agencies. Locum doctor participants were recruited through these organisations, locum recruitment agencies and networks. We used purposive, snowball and convenience sampling, drawing on intelligence from stakeholders, including our project advisory group, to identify and recruit organisations and participants. Patient participants were recruited through patient and contributor forums. The forum involved active partnership between patients and researchers in the research process to develop research which is relevant and useful to patient and public needs. Participant demographics were monitored to ensure representation across a broad range of roles in primary and secondary care and to increase diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity (see table 1 ).

• View inline

Characteristics of study participants

Data collection

Three semi-structured interview and focus group guides were developed for use with locums, people working with locums and patients with experience of being treated by locums (as shown in online supplemental files 1-3 ). Our previous review of the literature relating to quality and safety and locum work 17 informed the schedules as well as the initial coding and thematic development. Schedules were also refined and informed by our patient and public involvement (PPI) forum and our project advisory group. Each schedule was intended to explore locum doctor working arrangements with a particular focus on understanding how locum doctor working may affect the safety and quality of care and what strategies or systems organisations and individuals used to assure or improve quality and safety. The topic guides for locums and people working with locums also covered governance and support, the impact of the COVID pandemic and policies and initiatives used to support locums.

Supplemental material

Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription company and organised into codes and themes using the software package NVivo. 41 Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) 42 was used and involved familiarisation with the data by reading and re-reading the transcripts and field notes; coding the dataset and collating all relevant data extracts; generating initial themes by examining the codes and collated data to identify significant broader patterns of meaning across the dataset; reviewing themes by questioning whether themes answered the research question and told a convincing story of the data and combining, splitting and discarding themes as necessary; defining and naming themes by developing a detailed analysis of each theme; and finally the analytical write up which positioned the analysis in relation to existing literature. 43 RTA acknowledges the active role of researchers in knowledge production and the researcher’s subjectivity as the analytic resource. 42 RTA recognises interpretive variability between researchers based on differences in their knowledge and skills, theoretical assumptions and differences in how they responded to the dataset is acknowledged and expected. 42 The research team worked reflexively discussing their personal biases and their potential impact on the research at regular meetings throughout the data collection and analysis period. Our PPI forum were also involved in data collection and analysis, and offered a form of triangulation to enhance rigour, challenge and alternative interpretations of the findings. 44 Analysis adopted a constructionist epistemology, in that while we acknowledged the importance of recurrence in generating themes, meaning and meaningfulness were the central criteria in the coding process. 42

After themes were developed, an abductive approach was taken to position findings against a background of existing theory and knowledge. 17 30 This provided a way of constructing empirically based theorisations without confining theory to predefined concepts. 45 This approach integrated inductive data-driven coding with deductive theory-driven interpretation; aiming to find a middle ground between inductive and deductive methods and the most logical solution and useful explanation for phenomena. 45

We conducted 130 interviews with 88 participants who worked in healthcare and 42 patients took part in focus groups and one-to-one interviews. Participants included locums, permanently employed doctors; nurses and other health professionals; medical directors/clinical leaders; responsible officers (ROs are accountable for local clinical governance processes and focus on the performance of doctors) and appraisers; leads for medical staffing and clinical governance and practice managers (see table 2 ). Three experienced qualitative researchers (JF, GS and KW) and two members of the PPI forum (MM and MS) carried out five focus groups with 30 patients, and JF and GS carried out 12 one-to-one interviews. Data were collected between March 2021 and April 2022 during the COVID pandemic using video conferencing software (n=126) or over the phone (n=4) at a time convenient to participants. Interviews and focus groups ranged in length from 23 to 171 min, with the average interview being 59 min.

Healthcare organisations and participant roles

Thematic framework

Our findings are presented under five broad and interrelated themes that examine how locum work relates to and impacts quality and safety: ‘familiarity’ with an organisation and its patients and staff; ‘balance and stability’ in services with lots of locums; ‘discrimination and exclusion’ towards locums and their effects; ‘defensive practice’ by locums; and the positioning of locums outside clinical governance arrangements.

Familiarity: knowing who, where and how

Locums described often working in unfamiliar environments, sometimes with minimal induction and varying levels of support. Unfamiliarity, lack of access to or other restrictions on computer systems, policies, procedures and buildings meant that locums were not always able to do their job safely, productively or effectively.

That’s probably the biggest sort of safety aspect that sticks in my mind, is that it is unbelievably frustrating to have to learn a whole new set of patients from day to day … when I was signed up to four different hospitals, plus the locum agencies, I very quickly realised that not only is it the fact that you don’t know the patients from day to day, if you’re chopping and changing site the whole time, then store cupboards are laid out differently, ways of contacting relevant staff members are different, you’ve got to recognise what code to put in to bleep someone that’s different at every single site. (Interview 23, locum, secondary care)

Locum working sometimes created extra work for permanent staff who were responsible for inducting, training and supervising locums. The amount of additional workload was dependent on contextual factors, such as the experience of the locum, organisational support and length of placement, access to systems and what terms and conditions locums or organisations had negotiated. Locum reliance on permanent staff meant that care could be delayed, partially completed or not completed at all, which sometimes caused resentment.

Some of the things that we don’t … like, for example, procedures of limited clinical value that we don’t refer in for, they won’t know about those in our areas … So they’ll do referrals that we then will get pulled on. They’ll maybe prescribe medications that are not first line medications within our own formulary. So we see quite a bit of that, you know, there’s quite a lot of tidying up to be done afterwards or work. They generate that. So whilst we meet the patient numbers, they create a lot of work for the rest of the team. (Interview 3, practice manager, primary care)

Locums mitigated risks related to working in unfamiliar environments by avoiding organisations considered chaotic or unsafe, working below their grade to avoid having responsibility in unfamiliar organisations where they may not be supported or included in the team or working in a limited number of organisations to increase familiarity.

Most locums take jobs, locum work below their grade. So a person who’s at a registrar level would take a locum work as an SHO (senior house officer), because they don't know the trust that well. (Interview 55, locum, secondary care)

However, lack of familiarity and discontinuity could at times be beneficial for patients and organisations as fresh perspectives offered by locums led to different routes of treatment or management, and could alter organisational cultures or practices.

So that [locum] doctor, through that line of questioning and not having any sort of prior history … ordered the right tests and didn’t feel constrained in that practice about what tests that they could order. And someone subsequently … because when you get referred to hospital, the consultant said that that doctor was very much on the ball. And, of course, that’s a change to lifelong medication. And literally within a month of the medication kicking in, it transformed my life. (Focus group A, patient 1)

Balance and stability

The balance between locum and permanent staff had implications for quality and safety, organisational leadership, long-term planning and governance. Locums were often employed to deliver immediate services and consequently were less likely to be involved in team and organisational development. Locums recognised that having ‘an NHS run by locums’ was detrimental to quality and safety, and some avoided organisations that were locum dependent for this reason. Well functioning established teams were regarded as better able to incorporate a small number of locums without being significantly impacted.

Locum work, my view on it is they’re there to fill a gap. They shouldn’t be relied upon to deliver a service Monday to Friday, day in, day out, week in, week out. And unfortunately my trust see it as that, though, that’s my worry that they feel they’re not just plugging a gap, they’re almost as a workforce … (Interview 84, lead GP, primary and secondary care)

Departments that were disproportionately locum dependent were often perceived to lack clinical leadership and direction. An absence of consistent medical leadership meant that quality improvement was slower or less likely to happen, and trusting relationships between staff were harder to establish.

If you get a department that is disproportionately locum dependent, then it stagnates, it doesn't progress. Things like implementation of new NICE guidance, for example, that sort of thing tends not to happen or happen less well, less quickly. (Interview 30, responsible officer, secondary care)

Discrimination and exclusion

Most locums described negative behaviours and attitudes from staff and some patients, which impacted their involvement, inclusion and experiences in organisations. Negative attitudes and behaviours towards locums could affect turnover, locum well-being, team dynamics and potentially patient safety. Perceived disparities between pay, workload, competence and organisational and team commitment between locums and permanent staff could be sources of resentment and influenced how locums were treated and viewed. This compromised staff communication and reduced the sharing of important patient information.

I guess like any temporary post really, you struggle to invest in them, don't necessarily see them as being part of the team. Not very positive about them, particularly junior staff, particularly in the acute trusts. We'd have locums refusing to come back because of the treatment of the midwives. (Interview 86, clinical lead, secondary care)

Negative perceptions of competency and safety meant that locums were often stigmatised, marginalised and excluded. The identity of locum intersected and overlapped with other identities and was described as ‘layering up’ with ethnicity and gender to further exacerbate discrimination.

Oh, doctors coming over from Germany. There was one locum … that administered a dose of something and the patient died, and then there’s this whole layer of extra negativity attached to locum doctors in general because of what one doctor did, and that doctor happened to be someone from a different ethnicity … As a UK born and qualified doctor I can see that those overseas get it but I can also see that I have experienced that as well. So yeah, it can layer up with the whole locum thing. (Interview 59, locum GP, primary care)

A sense of othering and being seen as less was particularly evident during the COVID pandemic when resources were limited. Some locums described how they were not afforded the same protections as permanent members of staff and were sometimes expected to take on riskier work.

I’ve worked in another practice where, because they live on locums and they live on ad hoc locums, you’re a piece of dirt under the shoe. You don’t get gloves, you didn’t have aprons, you didn’t have a face visor, you didn’t have safety specs, you have to ask for a mask. Not only are you not treated as a service provider, you’re not treated as a colleague, someone with knowledge. (Interview 44, locum GP)

Defensive practice by locums

Locums recognised that they were likely to be scapegoated if things went wrong, and some locums described being more likely to practice defensively. Defensive practice has been defined as deviation from standard practice to avoid litigation, complaints or criticism. 46 Participants reported instances of defensive practice which involved providing services (eg, tests, referrals) or avoiding high-risk decisions, usually to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes such as patient complaints or potential termination of contract at short notice. Locums described practicing defensively because they were attempting to practice as safely as possible in complex unfamiliar environments where they were professionally isolated and perceived negatively. Permanent members of staff could perceive that locums practiced defensively because they lacked confidence in their abilities. The diversion of resources away from more clinically relevant activities placed additional burden on teams, who were already facing significant workload challenges.

Being risk averse and practising defensive medicine usually means more tests, more referrals, whereas holding risk tends to be disadvantageous for you as a locum because what’s the benefit to you of not doing that. You’re benefiting the system by rationing resource, the patient won’t thank you. (Interview 35, locum GP)

Locums described avoiding making decisions when risks to employment or medical licenses were perceived as high. Locums felt they were more vulnerable to criticisms of their clinical competence and disempowered to make decisions. Others felt that some locums were simply avoiding work and evaded responsibility for patients by pushing work onto others or into the future.

You don’t interfere, very simple. Over time locums have learned that if you interfere, if you participate in the team, you participate in patient care, [and this] is when you get into trouble … Well most of the locums that I know will just say, okay, there’s already somebody else who’s made a decision, it’s not my job to make a decision, I just follow through. If things go wrong, call the senior person and be done with it, that’s the end of my role. Actually doing something to protect a patient is not important for a locum because the risk is too high. (Interview 55, locum, secondary care)

Locums fall outside clinical governance arrangements

Governance practices in relation to locums varied widely and were not generally regarded as being as robust in comparison to permanently employed doctors. Responsibility for involving locum doctors in performance feedback, supervision, educational opportunities, appraisal and quality improvement was unclear. While some organisations included locums in their governance activities, others regarded locum work as transactional; where the locum was there to provide a finite service and the organisation assumed no responsibilities for their performance, development or oversight. There were concerns that governance structures were modelled on and designed for permanently employed doctors and did not work for locums. When deficits in performance were undetected or unaddressed, doctor performance and patient safety could be jeopardised.

I think it’s a remote world. It’s like a cloud, you know, it’s like the cloud. We talk about the cloud when it comes to storing information. And I think locum world is a bit like that … And I don’t know the doctors anywhere like as much as I did when I was an RO in the NHS, I knew them all personally. If I used to have a problem, I used to get them in my office there and then, chat it all through, sort it. Can’t do that in locum world, it might take me four days to get hold of the doctor, some of them won’t respond immediately … They don’t know me and I don’t know them. (Interview 51, responsible officer, locum agency)

The absence of typical recruitment processes (involving meeting a doctor, carrying out an interview and following up on references) meant that healthcare organisations were reliant on partial information from locum agencies, which made it difficult to determine competency, scope of practice and suitability for a role. However, staff shortages and a requirement to meet safe staffing ratios meant that organisational leaders had little recourse of action if they were unsure about a doctor’s capability, which caused anxiety and frustration. This suggests that the provision of healthcare superseded ensuring safety standards and necessitated accepting one of two objectionable alternatives; accepting gaps in staffing that may jeopardise patient safety or accepting unknown doctors; each of which may compromise patient safety.

If a locum turns up and I have serious doubts about their ability to do the job to the required standard, I don’t have any recourse … And therefore I’m in a position where either I accept this locum or I don’t. There’s not much in the way of middle ground. Not accepting them is a really unpalatable choice because if I say look, I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re up to this, I think you should go home, that leaves me with a gap. (Interview 30, consultant and responsible officer, secondary care)

Similar governance and information sharing problems were described by locum agencies and NHS organisations; both described difficulties in gathering and sharing feedback. When concerns were raised, participants were often uncertain as to what happened to the information they provided and whether it was shared or acted on. Locums often did not get to hear about concerns raised about them, meaning learning opportunities were missed.

It would give you more confidence if you heard back. And sometimes I'll pick up the phone and you try to do the best you can to make sure this information gets passed on. But I just have this nagging doubt that I'm not always convinced it does. (Interview 30, responsible officer, secondary care)

There was also a perception from some locum agency responsible officers that while most locum doctors were excellent, there were some locums who were isolated and in need of organisational and professional support.

You have to accept that whilst within the agency world, 80 per cent of the doctors we place are excellent, and have no problems, and do a great job, perhaps 20 per cent are those that have shaken down to that 20 per cent in the agency world, because they’ve not succeeded in the NHS, they’ve not got a substantive place, they are lost souls. And they are less able to cope with the vicissitudes of busy clinical life and professional life within a large organisation such as the NHS. (Interview 47, responsible officer, locum agency)

Our findings provide some profound and concerning insights for patient safety and quality of care. The ways in which locums were recruited, inducted, deployed and integrated, and supported by organisations undoubtedly affected quality and safety. Our findings indicate that regardless of their level of experience, it was unlikely that locum doctors would be able to function optimally in unfamiliar environments; and organisations who had poor supportive infrastructure and governance mechanisms for locums were less likely to deliver high-quality safe services.

Locums were often regarded as organisational outsiders—positioned at the periphery of the team and the organisation. The implications of transience and peripheral participation were weaker relationships with organisations, teams, peers and patients, leading some to suggest locum working is better suited to experienced doctors. 47 Consistent with previous research, 48 frequent variation in process, systems and equipment, combined with disruption in relationships and a lack of mutual awareness of team skills and competencies, decreased collective competence, placed additional burden on the wider healthcare team and reduced patient safety. As others have found in research on safe staffing and nursing, 49 temporary staff are not effective substitutes for staff who regularly work in the organisation. Safe medical staffing is not just achieved by filling rota gaps, but also team composition and doctors’ familiarity with the team and organisation must be taken into account. Regulatory agencies should consider locum usage in their inspections and perhaps be particularly concerned when organisations have ‘services run on locums’.

Our research found, as others have, 18 that organisations and doctors sometimes struggled to meet their governance obligations and that governance activities differed based on contractual status and organisational policies and norms, with systems being less robust for locums. This research has highlighted that much still needs to be done to develop governance systems that promote and protect the interests of patients and create an environment which supports locum doctors in meeting their professional obligations.

More positively, locum doctors are a potentially valuable source of information about safety concerns, faulty systems or poor conduct. 50 Locums move between organisations, have broad systems knowledge and are perhaps better placed to identify some quality and safety issues than permanent doctors. However, findings indicate opportunities for shared learning were often missed. Locums recognised their precarity and vulnerability when offering second opinions, sharing improvement ideas or voicing safety concerns; meaning opinions were not always offered and concerns were not always raised. Failure to voice concerns is a persistent problem in healthcare, 51 and locums may be even less inclined to offer potentially valuable information about safety concerns because of their perceptions of unsupportive organisational climates.

Our findings shed light on how temporary doctors fit into the enduring debate 37 around how responsibility between organisational systems and individual professionals is distributed. Locums appear to represent a subsection of the medical profession for whom the wider paradigm shift from a focus on individual blame to a systems approach 52 appeared not to have been made. Locums were often not regarded as a part of the organisation, and therefore the system, and not afforded the same protections as permanent staff when things went wrong. Blaming locums when things go wrong and punishing or sanctioning individuals who make errors in contexts that were not designed to incorporate temporary workers may divert attention from understanding inadequately designed, poorly functioning systems, or indeed the individual practice of other doctors. While we should take into account systemic factors that impede locums from performing safely, we should expect high standards of healthcare professionals, be cognisant of individual agency and recognise the distinction between blaming someone and holding them responsible. 53

Strengths and limitations

This large qualitative study explores locum working and quality and safety in an under-researched, yet growing area of the medical workforce. However, sites were all based in England, which means caution should be taken when extrapolating findings. Similar research in other countries and contexts to understand more about locum doctor working and quality and safety is therefore important. It is possible that our sample may have been skewed towards locums, healthcare professionals and patients who had more negative perceptions and experiences, although accounts resonate with previous research 30 and patient perspectives were generally positive. Our data were collected during the COVID pandemic, which may have affected findings as there was a reduction in locum working during that time 10 11 ; it also meant we were unable to carry out observations, which would have strengthened our findings and mitigated some of the inherent limitations of interviews, such as recall bias. We used both one-to-one interviews and focus groups in data collection. Although flexibility in data collection meant that participants had the option to take part in an interview or a focus group, these methods are used for different reasons and produce different data. There may have been differences in what participants disclosed depending on the method

Our findings show that the way in which doctors who worked on a temporary basis were integrated into organisations posed some significant challenges and opportunities for patient safety and quality of care, and that both organisations and locums had a part to play in improvement. Doctors working as locums are a heterogeneous group with differing backgrounds, experiences, skills and capabilities that likely reflect the variability seen in the wider population of doctors. Locums are working in the same pressured and imperfect systems as other health workers; it is vital that systemic problems are not mistaken for problems about individuals and important to recognise that a locum is not a type of doctor but a way of working. Our findings are a call to action for organisations to take stock of how they engage, support and work with locums, and asks both locums and organisations to reflect on whether their practices support a collective approach to patient safety and quality of care.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

This study involves human participants and was approved by the Health Research Authority North West—Haydock Research Ethics Committee 20/NW/0386. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

• General Medical Council
• NHS England
• World Health Organization
• Health Social Care Committee
• Harvey PR ,
• Trudgill NJ
• Bower P , et al
• Grigoroglou C ,
• Kontopantelis E , et al
• Shembavnekar N ,
• Bazeer N , et al
• Glatter R ,
• Papadakos P ,
• Ferguson J ,
• Schmutz JB ,
• DiazGranados D ,
• Dietz AS , et al
• Sutradhar R ,
• Jerath A , et al
• Oeppen RS , et al
• Pollack AH ,
• Mishra SR ,
• Apodaca C , et al
• McLaney E ,
• Morassaei S ,
• Hughes L , et al
• Firth-Cozens J
• Tazzyman A ,
• Walshe K , et al
• Pouwels KB ,
• van Hecke O , et al
• Aveling E-L ,
• Dixon-Woods M
• Blumenthal DM ,
• Olenski AR ,
• Tsugawa Y , et al
• QSR International Pty Ltd
• Stewart D ,
• Tierney T , et al
• Timmermans S
• Baungaard N ,
• Skovvang PL ,
• Assing Hvidt E , et al
• Lewis L , et al
• Liberati EG ,
• Tarrant C ,
• Willars J , et al
• Zaranko B ,
• Sanford NJ ,
• Kelly E , et al
• Martin GP ,
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Aveling EL ,
• Campbell A , et al
• Karsh B-T ,
• Holden RJ ,
• Alper SJ , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

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

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2
• Data supplement 3
• Data supplement 4

Twitter @janefergo, @@kieran_walshe

Contributors JF, KW, DA, TA and EK conceived the study. Recruitment was led by JF and supported by GS. JF, GS and KW conducted the interviews, reviewed and analysed the transcripts, and JF wrote the first version of the manuscript. Two members of the patient and public involvement (PPI) forum also assisted with focus groups. JF conducted data analysis with input from KW and GS, the PPI forum, and review by all authors. JF and KW were involved in initial critical review and revision of the manuscript, followed by all authors. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. JF is the guarantor.

Funding This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR128349), and the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (PSRC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Linked Articles

• Editorial Locums: threat or opportunity Richard Lilford BMJ Quality & Safety 2024; - Published Online First: 16 Apr 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016951

Read the full text or download the PDF:

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Saudi J Anaesth
• v.13(Suppl 1); 2019 Apr

Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key

Milind s. tullu.

Department of Pediatrics, Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

This article deals with formulating a suitable title and an appropriate abstract for an original research paper. The “title” and the “abstract” are the “initial impressions” of a research article, and hence they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, and meticulously. Often both of these are drafted after the full manuscript is ready. Most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper. The title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper and should be pleasant to read. The “title” should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and should not be misleading. The “abstract” needs to be simple, specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, scholarly, (preferably) structured, and should not be misrepresentative. The abstract should be consistent with the main text of the paper, especially after a revision is made to the paper and should include the key message prominently. It is very important to include the most important words and terms (the “keywords”) in the title and the abstract for appropriate indexing purpose and for retrieval from the search engines and scientific databases. Such keywords should be listed after the abstract. One must adhere to the instructions laid down by the target journal with regard to the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.

Introduction

This article deals with drafting a suitable “title” and an appropriate “abstract” for an original research paper. Because the “title” and the “abstract” are the “initial impressions” or the “face” of a research article, they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, meticulously, and consume time and energy.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] Often, these are drafted after the complete manuscript draft is ready.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] Most readers will read only the title and the abstract of a published research paper, and very few “interested ones” (especially, if the paper is of use to them) will go on to read the full paper.[ 1 , 2 ] One must remember to adhere to the instructions laid down by the “target journal” (the journal for which the author is writing) regarding the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.[ 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 ] Both the title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper – for editors (to decide whether to process the paper for further review), for reviewers (to get an initial impression of the paper), and for the readers (as these may be the only parts of the paper available freely and hence, read widely).[ 4 , 8 , 12 ] It may be worth for the novice author to browse through titles and abstracts of several prominent journals (and their target journal as well) to learn more about the wording and styles of the titles and abstracts, as well as the aims and scope of the particular journal.[ 5 , 7 , 9 , 13 ]

The details of the title are discussed under the subheadings of importance, types, drafting, and checklist.

Importance of the title

When a reader browses through the table of contents of a journal issue (hard copy or on website), the title is the “ first detail” or “face” of the paper that is read.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 13 ] Hence, it needs to be simple, direct, accurate, appropriate, specific, functional, interesting, attractive/appealing, concise/brief, precise/focused, unambiguous, memorable, captivating, informative (enough to encourage the reader to read further), unique, catchy, and it should not be misleading.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 ] It should have “just enough details” to arouse the interest and curiosity of the reader so that the reader then goes ahead with studying the abstract and then (if still interested) the full paper.[ 1 , 2 , 4 , 13 ] Journal websites, electronic databases, and search engines use the words in the title and abstract (the “keywords”) to retrieve a particular paper during a search; hence, the importance of these words in accessing the paper by the readers has been emphasized.[ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 14 ] Such important words (or keywords) should be arranged in appropriate order of importance as per the context of the paper and should be placed at the beginning of the title (rather than the later part of the title, as some search engines like Google may just display only the first six to seven words of the title).[ 3 , 5 , 12 ] Whimsical, amusing, or clever titles, though initially appealing, may be missed or misread by the busy reader and very short titles may miss the essential scientific words (the “keywords”) used by the indexing agencies to catch and categorize the paper.[ 1 , 3 , 4 , 9 ] Also, amusing or hilarious titles may be taken less seriously by the readers and may be cited less often.[ 4 , 15 ] An excessively long or complicated title may put off the readers.[ 3 , 9 ] It may be a good idea to draft the title after the main body of the text and the abstract are drafted.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]

Types of titles

Titles can be descriptive, declarative, or interrogative. They can also be classified as nominal, compound, or full-sentence titles.

Descriptive or neutral title

This has the essential elements of the research theme, that is, the patients/subjects, design, interventions, comparisons/control, and outcome, but does not reveal the main result or the conclusion.[ 3 , 4 , 12 , 16 ] Such a title allows the reader to interpret the findings of the research paper in an impartial manner and with an open mind.[ 3 ] These titles also give complete information about the contents of the article, have several keywords (thus increasing the visibility of the article in search engines), and have increased chances of being read and (then) being cited as well.[ 4 ] Hence, such descriptive titles giving a glimpse of the paper are generally preferred.[ 4 , 16 ]

Declarative title

This title states the main finding of the study in the title itself; it reduces the curiosity of the reader, may point toward a bias on the part of the author, and hence is best avoided.[ 3 , 4 , 12 , 16 ]

Interrogative title

This is the one which has a query or the research question in the title.[ 3 , 4 , 16 ] Though a query in the title has the ability to sensationalize the topic, and has more downloads (but less citations), it can be distracting to the reader and is again best avoided for a research article (but can, at times, be used for a review article).[ 3 , 6 , 16 , 17 ]

From a sentence construct point of view, titles may be nominal (capturing only the main theme of the study), compound (with subtitles to provide additional relevant information such as context, design, location/country, temporal aspect, sample size, importance, and a provocative or a literary; for example, see the title of this review), or full-sentence titles (which are longer and indicate an added degree of certainty of the results).[ 4 , 6 , 9 , 16 ] Any of these constructs may be used depending on the type of article, the key message, and the author's preference or judgement.[ 4 ]

Drafting a suitable title

A stepwise process can be followed to draft the appropriate title. The author should describe the paper in about three sentences, avoiding the results and ensuring that these sentences contain important scientific words/keywords that describe the main contents and subject of the paper.[ 1 , 4 , 6 , 12 ] Then the author should join the sentences to form a single sentence, shorten the length (by removing redundant words or adjectives or phrases), and finally edit the title (thus drafted) to make it more accurate, concise (about 10–15 words), and precise.[ 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 ] Some journals require that the study design be included in the title, and this may be placed (using a colon) after the primary title.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 14 ] The title should try to incorporate the Patients, Interventions, Comparisons and Outcome (PICO).[ 3 ] The place of the study may be included in the title (if absolutely necessary), that is, if the patient characteristics (such as study population, socioeconomic conditions, or cultural practices) are expected to vary as per the country (or the place of the study) and have a bearing on the possible outcomes.[ 3 , 6 ] Lengthy titles can be boring and appear unfocused, whereas very short titles may not be representative of the contents of the article; hence, optimum length is required to ensure that the title explains the main theme and content of the manuscript.[ 4 , 5 , 9 ] Abbreviations (except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as HIV, AIDS, DNA, RNA, CDC, FDA, ECG, and EEG) or acronyms should be avoided in the title, as a reader not familiar with them may skip such an article and nonstandard abbreviations may create problems in indexing the article.[ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 ] Also, too much of technical jargon or chemical formulas in the title may confuse the readers and the article may be skipped by them.[ 4 , 9 ] Numerical values of various parameters (stating study period or sample size) should also be avoided in the titles (unless deemed extremely essential).[ 4 ] It may be worthwhile to take an opinion from a impartial colleague before finalizing the title.[ 4 , 5 , 6 ] Thus, multiple factors (which are, at times, a bit conflicting or contrasting) need to be considered while formulating a title, and hence this should not be done in a hurry.[ 4 , 6 ] Many journals ask the authors to draft a “short title” or “running head” or “running title” for printing in the header or footer of the printed paper.[ 3 , 12 ] This is an abridged version of the main title of up to 40–50 characters, may have standard abbreviations, and helps the reader to navigate through the paper.[ 3 , 12 , 14 ]

Checklist for a good title

Table 1 gives a checklist/useful tips for drafting a good title for a research paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 ] Table 2 presents some of the titles used by the author of this article in his earlier research papers, and the appropriateness of the titles has been commented upon. As an individual exercise, the reader may try to improvise upon the titles (further) after reading the corresponding abstract and full paper.

Checklist/useful tips for drafting a good title for a research paper

Some titles used by author of this article in his earlier publications and remark/comment on their appropriateness

The Abstract

The details of the abstract are discussed under the subheadings of importance, types, drafting, and checklist.

Importance of the abstract

The abstract is a summary or synopsis of the full research paper and also needs to have similar characteristics like the title. It needs to be simple, direct, specific, functional, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, self-sufficient, complete, comprehensive, scholarly, balanced, and should not be misleading.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 17 ] Writing an abstract is to extract and summarize (AB – absolutely, STR – straightforward, ACT – actual data presentation and interpretation).[ 17 ] The title and abstracts are the only sections of the research paper that are often freely available to the readers on the journal websites, search engines, and in many abstracting agencies/databases, whereas the full paper may attract a payment per view or a fee for downloading the pdf copy.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 ] The abstract is an independent and stand-alone (that is, well understood without reading the full paper) section of the manuscript and is used by the editor to decide the fate of the article and to choose appropriate reviewers.[ 2 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 13 ] Even the reviewers are initially supplied only with the title and the abstract before they agree to review the full manuscript.[ 7 , 13 ] This is the second most commonly read part of the manuscript, and therefore it should reflect the contents of the main text of the paper accurately and thus act as a “real trailer” of the full article.[ 2 , 7 , 11 ] The readers will go through the full paper only if they find the abstract interesting and relevant to their practice; else they may skip the paper if the abstract is unimpressive.[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] The abstract needs to highlight the selling point of the manuscript and succeed in luring the reader to read the complete paper.[ 3 , 7 ] The title and the abstract should be constructed using keywords (key terms/important words) from all the sections of the main text.[ 12 ] Abstracts are also used for submitting research papers to a conference for consideration for presentation (as oral paper or poster).[ 9 , 13 , 17 ] Grammatical and typographic errors reflect poorly on the quality of the abstract, may indicate carelessness/casual attitude on part of the author, and hence should be avoided at all times.[ 9 ]

Types of abstracts

The abstracts can be structured or unstructured. They can also be classified as descriptive or informative abstracts.

Structured and unstructured abstracts

Structured abstracts are followed by most journals, are more informative, and include specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed.[ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 18 ] These subheadings usually include context/background, objectives, design, setting, participants, interventions, main outcome measures, results, and conclusions.[ 1 ] Some journals stick to the standard IMRAD format for the structure of the abstracts, and the subheadings would include Introduction/Background, Methods, Results, And (instead of Discussion) the Conclusion/s.[ 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 ] Structured abstracts are more elaborate, informative, easy to read, recall, and peer-review, and hence are preferred; however, they consume more space and can have same limitations as an unstructured abstract.[ 7 , 9 , 18 ] The structured abstracts are (possibly) better understood by the reviewers and readers. Anyway, the choice of the type of the abstract and the subheadings of a structured abstract depend on the particular journal style and is not left to the author's wish.[ 7 , 10 , 12 ] Separate subheadings may be necessary for reporting meta-analysis, educational research, quality improvement work, review, or case study.[ 1 ] Clinical trial abstracts need to include the essential items mentioned in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) guidelines.[ 7 , 9 , 14 , 19 ] Similar guidelines exist for various other types of studies, including observational studies and for studies of diagnostic accuracy.[ 20 , 21 ] A useful resource for the above guidelines is available at www.equator-network.org (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research). Unstructured (or non-structured) abstracts are free-flowing, do not have predefined subheadings, and are commonly used for papers that (usually) do not describe original research.[ 1 , 7 , 9 , 10 ]

The four-point structured abstract: This has the following elements which need to be properly balanced with regard to the content/matter under each subheading:[ 9 ]

Background and/or Objectives: This states why the work was undertaken and is usually written in just a couple of sentences.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 ] The hypothesis/study question and the major objectives are also stated under this subheading.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 ]

Methods: This subsection is the longest, states what was done, and gives essential details of the study design, setting, participants, blinding, sample size, sampling method, intervention/s, duration and follow-up, research instruments, main outcome measures, parameters evaluated, and how the outcomes were assessed or analyzed.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

Results/Observations/Findings: This subheading states what was found, is longer, is difficult to draft, and needs to mention important details including the number of study participants, results of analysis (of primary and secondary objectives), and include actual data (numbers, mean, median, standard deviation, “P” values, 95% confidence intervals, effect sizes, relative risks, odds ratio, etc.).[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

Conclusions: The take-home message (the “so what” of the paper) and other significant/important findings should be stated here, considering the interpretation of the research question/hypothesis and results put together (without overinterpreting the findings) and may also include the author's views on the implications of the study.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

The eight-point structured abstract: This has the following eight subheadings – Objectives, Study Design, Study Setting, Participants/Patients, Methods/Intervention, Outcome Measures, Results, and Conclusions.[ 3 , 9 , 18 ] The instructions to authors given by the particular journal state whether they use the four- or eight-point abstract or variants thereof.[ 3 , 14 ]

Descriptive and Informative abstracts

Descriptive abstracts are short (75–150 words), only portray what the paper contains without providing any more details; the reader has to read the full paper to know about its contents and are rarely used for original research papers.[ 7 , 10 ] These are used for case reports, reviews, opinions, and so on.[ 7 , 10 ] Informative abstracts (which may be structured or unstructured as described above) give a complete detailed summary of the article contents and truly reflect the actual research done.[ 7 , 10 ]

Drafting a suitable abstract

It is important to religiously stick to the instructions to authors (format, word limit, font size/style, and subheadings) provided by the journal for which the abstract and the paper are being written.[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] Most journals allow 200–300 words for formulating the abstract and it is wise to restrict oneself to this word limit.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 22 ] Though some authors prefer to draft the abstract initially, followed by the main text of the paper, it is recommended to draft the abstract in the end to maintain accuracy and conformity with the main text of the paper (thus maintaining an easy linkage/alignment with title, on one hand, and the introduction section of the main text, on the other hand).[ 2 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] The authors should check the subheadings (of the structured abstract) permitted by the target journal, use phrases rather than sentences to draft the content of the abstract, and avoid passive voice.[ 1 , 7 , 9 , 12 ] Next, the authors need to get rid of redundant words and edit the abstract (extensively) to the correct word count permitted (every word in the abstract “counts”!).[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] It is important to ensure that the key message, focus, and novelty of the paper are not compromised; the rationale of the study and the basis of the conclusions are clear; and that the abstract is consistent with the main text of the paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 22 ] This is especially important while submitting a revision of the paper (modified after addressing the reviewer's comments), as the changes made in the main (revised) text of the paper need to be reflected in the (revised) abstract as well.[ 2 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 22 ] Abbreviations should be avoided in an abstract, unless they are conventionally accepted or standard; references, tables, or figures should not be cited in the abstract.[ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 ] It may be worthwhile not to rush with the abstract and to get an opinion by an impartial colleague on the content of the abstract; and if possible, the full paper (an “informal” peer-review).[ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 17 ] Appropriate “Keywords” (three to ten words or phrases) should follow the abstract and should be preferably chosen from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of the U.S. National Library of Medicine ( https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/search ) and are used for indexing purposes.[ 2 , 3 , 11 , 12 ] These keywords need to be different from the words in the main title (the title words are automatically used for indexing the article) and can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, or words from the abstract and the main text.[ 3 , 12 ] The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; http://www.icmje.org/ ) also recommends publishing the clinical trial registration number at the end of the abstract.[ 7 , 14 ]

Checklist for a good abstract

Table 3 gives a checklist/useful tips for formulating a good abstract for a research paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 22 ]

Checklist/useful tips for formulating a good abstract for a research paper

Concluding Remarks

This review article has given a detailed account of the importance and types of titles and abstracts. It has also attempted to give useful hints for drafting an appropriate title and a complete abstract for a research paper. It is hoped that this review will help the authors in their career in medical writing.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Dr. Hemant Deshmukh - Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, for granting permission to publish this manuscript.

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2024

“I am in favour of organ donation, but I feel you should opt-in”—qualitative analysis of the #options 2020 survey free-text responses from NHS staff toward opt-out organ donation legislation in England

• Natalie L. Clark 1 ,
• Dorothy Coe 2 ,
• Natasha Newell 3 ,
• Mark N. A. Jones 4 ,
• Matthew Robb 4 ,
• David Reaich 1 &
• Caroline Wroe 2  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  47 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

In May 2020, England moved to an opt-out organ donation system, meaning adults are presumed to be an organ donor unless within an excluded group or have opted-out. This change aims to improve organ donation rates following brain or circulatory death. Healthcare staff in the UK are supportive of organ donation, however, both healthcare staff and the public have raised concerns and ethical issues regarding the change. The #options survey was completed by NHS organisations with the aim of understanding awareness and support of the change. This paper analyses the free-text responses from the survey.

The #options survey was registered as a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) portfolio trial [IRAS 275992] 14 February 2020, and was completed between July and December 2020 across NHS organisations in the North-East and North Cumbria, and North Thames. The survey contained 16 questions of which three were free-text, covering reasons against, additional information required and family discussions. The responses to these questions were thematically analysed.

The #options survey received 5789 responses from NHS staff with 1404 individuals leaving 1657 free-text responses for analysis. The family discussion question elicited the largest number of responses (66%), followed by those against the legislation (19%), and those requiring more information (15%). Analysis revealed six main themes with 22 sub-themes.

Conclusions

The overall #options survey indicated NHS staff are supportive of the legislative change. Analysis of the free-text responses indicates that the views of the NHS staff who are against the change reflect the reasons, misconceptions, and misunderstandings of the public. Additional concerns included the rationale for the change, informed decision making, easy access to information and information regarding organ donation processes. Educational materials and interventions need to be developed for NHS staff to address the concepts of autonomy and consent, organ donation processes, and promote family conversations. Wider public awareness campaigns should continue to promote the positives and refute the negatives thus reducing misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Trial registration

National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [IRAS 275992].

Peer Review reports

In England May 2020, Max and Kiera’s Law, also known as the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, came into effect [ 1 , 2 ]. This means adults in England are now presumed to have agreed to deceased organ donation unless they are within an excluded group, have actively recorded their decision to opt-out of organ donation on the organ donor register (ODR), or nominated an individual to make the decision on their behalf [ 1 , 2 ]. The rationale for the legislative change is to improve the organ donation rates and reduce the shortage of organs available to donate following brain or circulatory death within the UK [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. This is particularly important considering the growing number of patients awaiting a transplant. Almost 7000 patients were waiting in the UK at the end of March 2023 [ 5 ]. Wales was the first to make the legislative change in December 2015, followed by Scotland in March 2021 and lastly Northern Ireland in June 2023 [ 2 ]. Following the change in Wales, consent rates had increased from 58% in 2015/16 to 77% in 2018/19 [ 6 ], suggesting the opt-out system can significantly increase consent, though it further suggests that it might take a few years to fully appreciate the impact [ 7 , 8 ]. Spain, for example, has had an opt-out legislation since 1979 with increases in organ donation seen 10 years later [ 9 ].

Research, however, has raised concerns from both the public and healthcare staff regarding the move to an opt-out system. These concerns predominantly relate to a loss of freedom and individual choice [ 9 , 10 ], as well as an increased perception of state ownership of organs [ 10 , 11 , 12 ] after death. Healthcare staff additionally fear of a loss of trust and a damaged relationship with their patients [ 9 , 11 ]. These concerns are frequently linked to emotional and attitudinal barriers towards organ donation, understanding and acceptance [ 9 ]. Four often referenced barriers include (1) jinx factor: superstitious beliefs [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]; (2) ick factor: feelings of disgust related to donating [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]; (3) bodily integrity: body must remain intact [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]; (4) medical mistrust: believing doctors will not save the life of someone on the ODR [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The latter barrier is mostly reported by the general public in countries with opt-out systems [ 13 , 14 , 16 ] although medical mistrust does feature as a barrier across all organ donation systems. In addition, it is a reported barrier healthcare staff believe will occur in the UK under an opt-out system [ 9 , 16 ].

Deceased donation from ethnic minority groups is low in the UK, with family consent being a predominant barrier in these groups. Consent rates are 35% for ethnic minority eligible donors compared to 65% for white eligible donors [ 5 ]. The reasons for declining commonly relate to being uncertain of the person’s wishes and believing it was against their religious/cultural beliefs. Healthcare staff, particularly in the intensive care setting, have expressed a lack of confidence in communication and supporting ethnic minority groups because of language barriers and differing religious/cultural beliefs to their own [ 17 ]. However, one study has highlighted that generally all religious groups are in favour of organ donation with respect to certain rules and processes. Therefore, increasing knowledge amongst healthcare staff of differing religious beliefs would improve communication and help to sensitively support families during this difficult time [ 18 , 19 ]. However, individually and combined, the attitudinal barriers, concerns towards an opt-out system, and lack of understanding about ethnic minority groups, can have a significant impact within a soft opt-out system whereby the family are still approached about donation and can veto if they wish [ 11 , 12 , 20 ].

The #options survey [ 21 ] was completed online by healthcare staff from National Health Service (NHS) organisations in North-East and North Cumbria (NENC) and North Thames. The aim was to gain an understanding of the awareness and support to the change in legislation. The findings of the survey suggested that NHS staff are more aware, supportive, and proactive about organ donation than the general public, including NHS staff from religious and ethnic minority groups. However, there were still a number who express direct opposition to the change in legislation due to personal choice, views surrounding autonomy, misconceptions or lack of information. This paper will focus on the qualitative analysis of free-text responses to three questions included in the #options survey. It aims to explore the reasons for being against the legislation, what additional information they require to make a decision, and why had they not discussed their organ donation decision with their family. It will further explore a subset analysis of place of work, ethnicity, and misconceptions. The findings will aid suggestions for future educational and engagement work.

Design, sample and setting

The #options survey was approved as a clinical research study through the integrated research application system (IRAS) and registered as a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) portfolio trial [IRAS 275992]. The survey was based on a previously used public survey [ 22 ] and peer reviewed by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT). The free-text responses used in #options were an addition to the closed questions used in both the #options and the public survey. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the start of the survey was delayed by 4 months, opening for responses between July to December 2020. All NHS organisations in the NENC and North Thames were invited to take part. Those that accepted invitations were supplied with a communication package to distribute to their staff. All respondents voluntarily confirmed their agreement to participate in the survey at the beginning. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist was used to guide analysis and reporting of findings [ 23 ], see Supplementary material 1 .

Data collection and analysis

The survey contained 16 questions, including a brief description of the change in legislation. The questions consisted of demographic details (age, sex, ethnicity, religion), place of work, and if the respondent had contact with or worked in an area offering support to donors and recipients. Three of the questions filtered to a free-text response, see Supplementary material 2 . These responses were transferred to Microsoft Excel to be cleaned and thematically analysed by DC. Thematic analysis was chosen to facilitate identification of groups and patterns within large datasets [ 24 ]. Each response was read multiple times to promote familiarity and initially coded. Following coding, they were reviewed to allow areas of interest to form and derive themes and sub-themes. Additional subsets were identified and analysed to better reflect and contrast views. This included, at the request of NHSBT, the theme of ‘misconceptions’. The themes were reviewed within the team (DC, CW, NK, NC, MJ) and shared with NHSBT. Any disagreements were discussed and agreed within the team.

Overall, the #options survey received 5789 responses from NHS staff. The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted on NHS organisations from North Thames to participate, resulting in respondents predominantly being from NENC (86%). Of the respondents, 1404 individuals (24%) left 1657 free-text responses for analysis. The family discussion question elicited the largest number of responses, accounting for 66% of the responses ( n  = 1088), followed by against the legislation at 19% ( n  = 316) and more information needed at 15% ( n  = 253). The responses to the against legislation question provided the richest data as they contained the most information. Across the three questions, there were six main themes and 22 sub-themes, see Table  1 . The large number of free-text responses illustrate the multifaceted nature of individuals views with many quotes containing overlap between themes and sub-themes.

Respondent characteristics

In comparison to the whole #options survey respondents, the free-text response group contained proportionally more males (21% vs 27%), less females (78% vs 72%), and marginally more 18–24year-olds (7% vs 8%), respectively. There were 5% more 55 + year olds in the free-text group, however all other age groups were between 2–3% lower when compared to the whole group. Additionally, the free-text group were more ethnically diverse than the whole group (6.9% vs 15.4%), with all named religions also having a higher representation (3.9% vs 7.3%), respectively.

Question one: I am against the legislation – Can you help us understand why you are against this legislation?

Of the three questions, this elicited the largest number of responses from males ( n  = 94, 30%), those aged over 55 years ( n  = 103, 33%), and ethnic minority responders ( n  = 79, 25%). Subset analysis of place of employment indicates 27% were from the transplant centre ( n  = 84), 8% were from the mental health trust ( n  = 26), and 4% from the ambulance trust ( n  = 14). Thematic analysis uncovered four main themes and 12 sub-themes from the responses, with the predominant theme being a perceived loss of autonomy.

Theme one: loss of autonomy

Respondents’ reasons for a loss of autonomy were categorised into four sub-themes. Firstly, calling into question the nature of informed consent and secondly, peoples’ awareness of the legislative change. One respondent stated individuals need to be “fully aware and informed” [R2943] in order to have consented to organ donation. However, one respondent stated that they believe individuals have “not [been] informed well” [R930] and thus “if people are not aware of it, how are they making a choice on what happens to their organs” [R1166] . It was suggested that awareness of the change may have “been overshadowed by COVID” [R4119] .

Furthermore, there was concerns regarding the means to record an opt-out decision, specifically to those that are “not tech savvy” [R167] , “homeless” [R5721] , “vulnerable” [R4553] , and “elderly” [R2155] . Therefore, removing that individual’s right to record their decision due to being at a disadvantage.

Finally, respondents expressed concerns of a move to an authoritarian model of State ownership of organs. This elicited strong, negative reactions from individuals under the belief the State would own and “harvest” a person’s organs under a deemed consent approach, with some removing themselves as a donor consequently, “I am furious that the Government has decided that my organs are theirs to assign. It is MY gift to give, not theirs. I have now removed myself as a long-standing organ donor.” [R593] .

Theme two: consequences

Following respondents stating their reason for being against the legislative change, they discussed further what they believed to be the consequences of an opt-out legislation, with a focus on trust. Respondents cited a lack of trust towards the system, “I have no Trust in the UK government” [R5374] , with some surprisingly citing a lack of trust towards healthcare professionals, “Don’t trust doctors in regard to organ donation” [R3010], as well as a fear of eroding trust with the general public, “This brings the NHS Organ Donation directly into dispute with the public.” [R1237]. Respondents additionally believed the legislative change would lead to an increase in mistakes i.e., organ’s being removed against a person’s wishes by presuming, “not convinced that errors won't be made in my notifying my objection and that this won't be dealt with or handed over correctly” [R3018]. Finally, it is believed this change would also lead to, “additional upset” [R587], for already grieving families.

Theme three: legislation

Respondents were additionally against the legislation itself as they believed it lacked an evidence-base to prove it is successful at increasing the numbers of organs donated. As well as this, respondents perceived the legislation as one that removed the donor’s choice as to which organs they want to donate, some with a religious attribute “I don't mind donating but would like choice of what I like to i.e., not my cornea as for after life I want to see where I am going.” [R5274].

Theme four: religion and culture

Religion and culture was another common theme with sub-themes relating to maintaining bodily integrity following death and the lack of clarity around the definition of brain death. Many others stated that organ donation is against their religion or, were “unsure whether organ donation is permissible” [R1067].

Question two: I need more information to decide—What information would you like to help you decide?

This question elicited the most responses from females ( n  = 188, 74%), those aged over 55 years ( n  = 80, 32%), with 19% being from ethnic minority groups ( n  = 49). Subset analysis of place of employment indicates 18% were from the transplant centre ( n  = 46), 8% were from the mental health trust ( n  = 18), and 9% from the ambulance trust ( n  = 23). Thematic analysis uncovered a main theme of “everything” . There were many responses that did not specify what information was required, but indicated that more general information on organ donation was required, within this there were five sub-themes.

Sub-themes:

The first sub-theme identified a request for information around the influence a family has on the decision to donate and the information that will be provided to families. This included providing “emotional wellbeing” [R162] support, and information on whether families can “appeal against the decision” [R539] or “be consulted” [R923] following their loved one’s death. This was mainly requested by those employed by transplant centres.

The second request was for information on the “process involved after death for organ retrieval” [R171] , predominantly by ethnic minority groups and those employed by the mental health trusts, with specific requests on confirming eligibility. Other examples of requested information on the process and pathway included “how the organs will be used” [R1086] , “what will be donated” [R1629] , and “who benefits from them” [R3730] .

The third request was information regarding the publicity strategy to raise awareness of the legislative change. Many of the respondents stated they did not think there was enough “coverage in the media” [R3668]. Additional considerations of public dissemination were to ensure it was an “ easy read update” [R137 3 ] , specifically for “the elderly or those with poor understanding of English who may struggled with the process” [R1676] .

The fourth request was information around the systems in place to record a decision. There were additional requests for the opt-out processes if someone was within the excluded group and “what safeguards are in place” [R3777], as well as what if individuals change their mind and the ease of recording this new decision.

Finally, and similarly to the first question, the fifth request was information for an evidence-base. Respondents stated that they, “would like to know the reasons behind this change” [R3965] , believing that if they had a greater understanding then this might increase their support towards the legislative change.

Question three: Have you discussed your decision with a family member? If no, can you help us understand what has stopped you discussing this with your family?

The free-text responses to analyse were from those who responded “No” to, “Have you discussed your decision with a family member?”. This received 1430 responses with females ( n  = 1025, 27%) predominantly answering “No”. However, not everyone left a free-text response, leaving 1088 comments for analysis. These were predominantly made by those aged over 55 years ( n  = 268, 24%), with 5% being from ethnic minority groups ( n  = 49). Subset analysis of the 1088 responses regarding place of employment indicated 14% were from the transplant centre ( n  = 147), 7% were from the mental health trust ( n  = 78), and 9% from the ambulance trust ( n  = 96). The analysis uncovered a main theme of priority and relevance made up of five sub-themes.

The first sub-theme identified one reason to be that it was their “individual decision” [R3] and there would be “nothing to be gained” [R248] from a discussion. Some respondents stated that despite a lack of discussion, their family members would assume their wishes in relation to organ donation and support these, “I imagine they are all of the same mindset” [R4470]. However, some stated their reasons to be because they “don’t have a family” [R1127] to discuss this with or have “young ones whose understanding is limited about organ donation” [R356] . Positively, there were several respondents who suggested the question had acted as a prompt to speak to their family.

Another reason stated by respondents was that they found the topic to be too difficult to discuss due to “recent bereavements” [R444], “current environment” [R441] , and “a reluctance to address death” [R4486] . As evident in the latter quote, many respondents viewed discussions around death and dying as a “taboo subject” [R3285] , increasing the avoidance of having such conversations.

Finally, the fifth reason was that several respondents “had not made any decision yet” [R2478] . One respondent wanted to ensure they had reviewed all available information before deciding and having a well-informed discussion with them.

Misconceptions

A further subset analysis of responses coded as misconceptions was reviewed at the request of NHSBT, with interest in whether these occurred from healthcare staff working with donors and recipients. Misconceptions were identified across the three questions, with misconceptions accounting for 24% of the responses to the against the legislation question. Responses used emotive, powerful words with suggestions of State ownership of organs, abuse of the system to procure organs, change in treatment of donors to hasten death, religious and cultural objections, and recipient worthiness.

I worked in organ retrieval theatre during my career and I was uncomfortable with the way the operations were performed during this period. Although the 'brain dead' tests had been completed prior to the operation the vital signs of the patient often reflected that the patient was responding to painful stimuli. Sometimes the patient was not given the usual analgesia that is often given during routine operations. This made me rethink organ donation therefore I am uncomfortable with this. I always carried a donation card prior to my experience but subsequently would not wish to donate. This may be a personal feeling but that is my experience. [R660].

I think that this is a choice that should be left to individuals and families to make. After many years in nursing lots of it spent with transplant patients not all recipients embrace a 'healthy lifestyle' post-transplant with many going back to old lifestyle choices which made a transplant necessary in the first place. [R867].

Additional comments suggested certain medical conditions and advancing age precludes donation and that the ability to choose which organs to donate had been removed.

Most of them will be of no use as I have had a heart attack, I smoke and have Type 2 diabetes. [R595]

Further analysis indicated that 27% ( n  = 24) of these comments were made by individuals who worked with or in an area that supported donors and recipients.

In summary, this qualitative paper has evidenced that the ability to make an autonomous informed decision is foremost in the respondent’s thoughts regarding an opt-out system. This has been commonly cited as a reason throughout the literature by those against an opt-out system [ 9 , 10 , 25 , 26 ]. The loss of that ability was the primary reason for respondents being against the change in legislation with the notion that the decision is a personal choice cited as a reason for lack of discussion with family members. Respondents stated that the ability to make autonomous decisions needs to be adequately supported by evidence-based information that is accessible to all. If the latter is unavailable, they expressed concern for negative consequences. This includes an increase in the perceived belief of the potential for mistakes and abuse of the system, as well as family distress and loss of trust in the donation system and the staff who work in it, as supported by previous literature [ 9 , 11 ].

Our findings further coincide with that of previous literature, highlighting views suggesting that the opt-out system is a move towards an authoritarian system, illustrating the commercialisation of organs, and a system that is open to abuse and mistakes [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Healthcare staff require reassurance that the population, specifically the hard-to-reach groups like the elderly and homeless, have access to information and systems in order to be able to make an informed decision [ 30 , 31 ]. Whilst the findings from the overall #options survey demonstrated awareness is higher in NHS staff, there was a significant narrative in the free-text response regarding a lack of awareness and a concern the general public must also lack the same awareness of the system change. Some responses also reflected medical mistrust concerns of the general public [ 13 , 14 , 16 ] as well as expressing a fear of losing trust with the public [ 9 , 11 , 16 ], as found within previous work. Additional research articles raising awareness of the opt-out system in England suggest that despite publicising the change with carefully crafted positive messaging, negative views and attitudes are likely to influence interpretation leading to an increase in misinformation [ 28 ]. Targeted, evidence-based interventions and campaigns that address misinformation, particularly in sub-groups like ethnic minorities, is likely to provide reassurance to NHS staff and the general public, as well as providing reliable resources of information [ 28 ].

Respondents also requested more detailed information about the process of organ donation. The disparity of information and the knowledge of the processes of donation includes eligibility criteria, perceived religious and cultural exclusions, practical processes of brain and circulatory death, and subsequent organ retrieval. As well as, most importantly, more information on the care provided to the donor before and after the donation procedure. The gap of available factual knowledge is instead filled by misconceptions and misunderstandings which is perpetuated until new information and knowledge is acquired. It may also be attributed to the increased awareness of ethical and regulatory processes. These attitudes and views illustrate the complexity of opinions associated with religion, culture, medical mistrust, and ignorance of the donation processes [ 11 , 15 , 32 ]. There is evidently a need for healthcare staff to display openness and transparency about the processes of organ donation and how this is completed, particularly with the donor’s family. It further reinforces the need to increase the knowledge of differing religious and cultural beliefs to support conversations with families [ 18 , 19 ].

Both healthcare staff and the public would benefit from educational materials and interventions to address attitudes towards organ donation [ 19 , 28 , 33 ]. This would assist in correcting misconceptions and misunderstandings held by NHS staff, specifically those who support and work with organ donors and recipients. Previous work illustrates support for donation being higher in intensivists, recommending educational programmes to increase awareness across all healthcare staff [ 34 ]. The quantitative and qualitative findings of the #options survey would support this recommendation, adding that interventions need to be delivered by those working within organ donation and transplantation. This would build on the community work being conducted by NHSBT, hopefully leading NHS staff to become transplant ambassadors within their local communities.

A further finding was that of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the role of the family, a finding also supported by the literature [ 11 ]. It was suggested that family distress would be heightened, and families would override the premise of opt-out. Literature also supports this could be further impacted if the family holds negative attitudes towards organ donation [ 20 ]. The uncertainty of the donors’ wishes was the most common reason for refusing from ethnic minority groups [ 35 ], further highlighting the need for family discussions. Without this, families feel they are left with no prior indication so they opt-out as a precaution. Making an opt-in decision known can aid the grieving process as the family takes comfort in knowing they are fulfilling the donors wishes [ 26 ] and reduces the likelihood of refusal due to uncertainty about their wishes [ 36 ]. The ambiguity around the role of the family, coupled with not explicitly stating a choice via the organ donor register or discussions with family can make it problematic for next of kin and NHS staff.

Limitations

It is acknowledged that the findings of this study could have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic beyond the changes to the research delivery plan including a shift in critical care priorities, initial increase of false information circulating social media, delayed specialist nurse training, and removal of planned public campaigns [ 37 , 38 ]. The degree of the impact is unknown and supports the view that ongoing research into healthcare staff attitudes is required. Additionally, the survey did not collect job titles and is therefore limited to combining all healthcare staff responses. It is understood not all staff, such as those working in mental health, would know in depth details of organ donation and legislation, but it is expected that their level of knowledge would be greater than that of the general public.

The quantitative analysis [ 21 ] of the #options survey showed that overall NHS staff are well informed and more supportive of the change in legislation when compared to the general public. This qualitative analysis of the free-text responses provides a greater insight into the views of the healthcare staff who against the change. The reasons given reflect the known misconceptions and misunderstandings held by the general public and evidenced within the literature [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. There are further concerns about the rationale for the change, the nature of the informed decision making, ease of access to information including information regarding organ donation processes. We therefore propose that educational materials and interventions for NHS staff are developed to address the concepts of autonomy and consent, are transparent about organ donation processes, and address the need for conversations with family. Regarding the wider public awareness campaigns, there is a continued need to promote the positives and refute the negatives to fill the knowledge gap with evidence-based information [ 39 ] and reduce misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Integrated research application system

North-East and North Cumbria

• National Health Service

National Health Service Blood and Transplant

National Institute of Health Research

Organ donor register

United Kingdom

NHS Blood and Transplant. Max and Keira’s Law come into effect in England, https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/get-involved/news/max-and-keira-s-law-comes-into-effect-in-england (Accessed 24 Feb 2021).

NHS Blood and Transplant. Organ donation laws. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/uk-laws/ (Accessed 26 July 2023).

Human Tissue Authority. Human Tissue Act 2004: human tissue authority. 2017. https://www.hta.gov.uk/policies/human-tissue-act-2004 (Accessed 07 Apr 2023).

NHS Blood and Transplant. ODT clinical, donation after brainstem death. 2019. https://www.odt.nhs.uk/deceased-donation/best-practice-guidance/donation-after-brainstem-death/ (Accessed 07 Apr 2023).

NHS Blood and Transplant. Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: Activity Report 2022/23. https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/30198/activity-report-2022-2023-final.pdf (Accessed 26 July 2023).

NHS Blood and Transplant. Welsh Health Minister celebrates that ‘Opt-out organ donation scheme has transformed lives’. 2020. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/get-involved/news/welsh-health-minister-celebrates-that-opt-out-organ-donation-scheme-has-transformed-lives/#:~:text=Consent%20rates%20for%20donation%20have,from%20180%20in%202017%2F18 (Accessed 26 July 2023).

Noyes J, McLaughlin L, Morgan K, et al. Short-term impact of introducing a soft opt-out organ donation system in Wales: before and after study. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e025159. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025159 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Madden S, Collett D, Walton P, Empson K, Forsythe J, Ingham A, Morgan K, Murphy P, Neuberger J, Gardiner D. The effect on consent rates for deceased organ donation in Wales after the introduction of an opt-out system. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(9):1146–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15055 .

Rieu R. The potential impact of an opt-out system for organ donation in the UK. Law, ethics and medicine. 2010;36:534–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031757 .

Miller J, Currie S, McGregor LM, O’Carroll RE. ‘It’s like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men’: A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt-out of organ donation. 2020; 25: 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12406

Miller J, Currie S, O’Carroll RE. ‘If I donate my organs it’s a gift, if you take them it’s theft’: a qualitative study of planned donor decisions under opt-out legislation. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1463. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7774-1 .

Rudge CJ. Organ donation: opting in or opting out? British Journal of General Practice. 2018: 62–63. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X694445

Morgan SE, Stephenson MT, Harrison TR, Afifi WA, Long SD. Facts versus ‘feelings’: how rational is the decision to become an organ donor? J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):644–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105308090936 .

Clark NL, Copping L, Swainston K, McGeechan GJ. Attitudes to Organ Donor Registration in England Under Opt-Out Legislation. Progress In Transplantation. 2023; 0(0). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248231189869

Miller J, Currie S, O’Carroll RE. ‘What if I’m not dead?’ – Myth-busting and organ donation. Br J Health Psychol. 2019;24:141–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12344 .

Organ Donation Taskforce. The potential impact of an opt out system for organ donation in the UK. The National Archives. 2008:1–36.

Morgan M, Kenten C, Deedat S, Farsides B, Newton T, Randhawa G, et al. Increasing the acceptability and rates of organ donation among ethnic groups: a programme of observational and evaluative research on Donation, Transplantation and Ethnicity (DonaTE). Program Grants Appl Res. 2016;4(4):1–196. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar04040 .

Doerry K, Oh J, Vincent D, Fishcer L, Schulz-Jurgensen S. Religious and cultural aspects of organ donation: Narrowing the gap through understanding different religious beliefs. Pediatr Transplant. 2022;26: e14339. https://doi.org/10.1111/petr.14339 .

Witjes M, Jansen NE, van der Hoeven JG, Abdo WF. Interventions aimed at healthcare professionals to increase the number of organ donors: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2019;23:227. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2509-3 .

Shepherd L, O’Carroll RE, Ferguson E. Assessing the factors that influence the donation of a deceased family member’s organs in an opt-out system for organ donation. Soc Sci Med. 2023;317: 115545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115545 .

Coe D, Newell N, Jones M, Robb M, Clark N, Reaich D, Wroe C. NHS staff awareness, attitudes and actions towards the change in organ donation law in England – results of the #options survey 2020. Archives of Public Health. 2023;81:88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01099-y .

Welsh Government Social Research. Survey of Public Attitudes to Organ Donation: Wave 2. 66/2013, Welsh Government, 2013. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-04/public-attitudes-organ-donation-wave-2.pdf (Accessed 29 June 2021).

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

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

Cantrell TK. The ‘opt-out’ approach to deceased organ donation in England: A misconceived policy which may precipitate moral harm. Clin Ethics. 2019;14:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750919851052 .

Hoeyer K, Jensen AMB, Olejaz M. Transplantation as an abstract good: practising deliberate ignorance in deceased organ donation in Denmark. Sociol Health Illn. 2015;37:578–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12211 .

Dalal AR. Philosophy of organ donation: Review of ethical facets. World J Transplant. 2015;5:44–51. https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v5.i2.44 .

Faherty G, Williams L, Noyes J, McLaughlin L, Bostock J, Mays N. Analysis of content and online public responses to media articles that raise awareness of the opt-out system of consent to organ donation in England. Front Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1067635 .

Koplin JJ. From blood donation to kidney sales: the gift relationship and transplant commercialism. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33:102–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1067635 .

Morgan M, Kenten C, Deedat S, et al. Attitudes to deceased organ donation and registration as a donor among minority ethnic groups in North America and the UK: a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. Ethn Health. 2013;18:367–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2012.752073 .

Truijens D, van Exel J. Views on deceased organ donation in the Netherlands: A q-methodology study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0216479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216479 .

Irving MJ, Tong A, Jan S, Cass A, Rose J, Chadban S, Allen RD, Craig JC, Wong G, Howard K. Factors that influence the decision to be an organ donor: a systematic review of the qualitative literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:2526–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfr683 .

Radunz S, Hertel S, Schmid KW, Heuer M, Stommel P, Fruhauf NR, Saner FH, Paul A, Kaiser GM. Attitude of Health Care Professionals to Organ Donation: Two Surveys Among the Staff of a German University Hospital. Transplant Proc. 2010;42:126–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.12.034 .

Umana E, Grant O, Curran E, May P, Mohamed A, O’Donnell J. Attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals regarding organ donation. A survey of the Saolta University health care group. Ir Med J. 2018;111:838.

Google Scholar  

Daga S, Patel R, Howard D, et al. ‘Pass it on’ - New Organ Donation Law in England May 2020: What Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) Communities should do and Why? The Physician; 6. Epub ahead of print 5 May 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38192/1.6.1.7 .

NHS Organ Donation. The UK Opt-Out Experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22oCq5NKoiE&t=3211s . YouTube 25 February 2021. Accessed 05 Dec 2023.

UK Parliament, House of Lords, Lords Chamber, Volume 803: debated 18 May 2020. Draft Human Tissue (Permitted Material: Exceptions) (England) Regulations 2020. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-05-18/debates/1a7747af-1951-4289-b8d5-639493c85bb1/LordsChamber . 18 May 2020. Accessed 05 Dec 2023.

Miller J, McGregor L, Currie S, O’Carroll RE. Investigating the effects of threatening language, message framing, and reactance in opt-out organ donation campaigns. Ann Behav Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab017 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

With thanks to the NHSBT legislation implementation team for peer review of the questionnaire and the Kantar population survey data.

Funding for the project was gained from the Northern Counties Kidney Research Fund. Grant number 16.01.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, England, UK

Natalie L. Clark & David Reaich

Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, England, UK

Dorothy Coe & Caroline Wroe

Centre for Process Innovation, Sedgefield, County Durham, England, UK

Natasha Newell

NHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, England, UK

Mark N. A. Jones & Matthew Robb

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NC, DC, and CW were responsible for the drafting and revising of the manuscript. NN, MJ, MR, DR, and CW were responsible for the design of the study. DC completed the qualitative analysis. NC, DC, NN, MJ, MR, DR, and CW read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Wroe .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was reviewed and approved by a Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) [REC reference: 20/HRA/0150] via the integrated research application system (IRAS) and registered as a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) portfolio trial [IRAS 275992]. Informed Consent was obtained from all the participants and/or their legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clark, N.L., Coe, D., Newell, N. et al. “I am in favour of organ donation, but I feel you should opt-in”—qualitative analysis of the #options 2020 survey free-text responses from NHS staff toward opt-out organ donation legislation in England. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 47 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01048-6

Download citation

Received : 19 September 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 20 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01048-6

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

• Organ donation
• Legislation
• Qualitative

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Effect of spraying some bio and nano stimulants fortified with potassium on some qualitative traits and active substances in rice grain

• Badiri, Zainab Kataa Abdel
• Al-Juthery, Hayyawi Wewa Attia

The purpose of this study was to determine how rice (Anber 33 cultivar) responded to foliar spraying with individual and potassium-fortified bio and nano stimulants on various qualitative features and active ingredients in rice grains. During the time frame of 15 June 2021 to 23 November 2021, field research was carried out in (District 41 - Al-Hussainiya, Al-Tali'ah Sub-district), Babylon province, Iraq. Three replications of the experiment were carried out using the " Randomized Complete Blocks Design " (RCBD) (48 experimental units) The experiment consisted of 16 treatments that were randomly assigned to each replicator in accordance with a straightforward one-way experiment in which (7) bio and nano-stimulants, represented by Atonik, Fertigrain, Siaption, Cimfamin BK, Taravertavant, Nano Optimus plus, and Saccharmyces cerevisiae extract, were sprayed separately and supplemented with potassium, in addition to the control treatment, which consisted of spraying only water, between treatments (14 days) there are two sprays every treatment. Duncan test results showed that foliar spraying with Fertigrain biostimulator supplemented with potassium (Fer+K) recorded the highest mean of (8.74) % of the protein in grains, iron concentration in grains (12.12) mg Fe kg ‑1 , and copper concentration in grains (4.62) mg Cu. kg ‑1 . Also, foliar spraying with Nano Optimus plus potassium (NOp+K) recorded the highest average of zinc concentration in grains (18) mg Zn kg ‑1 . The results of the gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) also showed that the Nano Optimus plus (NOp) treatment recorded the highest percentage in the rice grain content of saturated fatty acid stearic acid (8.4%) and spraying with the growth regulator Atonik (At) gave the highest value in the content of the rice grains. Rice grains of palmitic acid (34.05)% and the foliar spraying with Fertigrain and Potassium (Fer+K) stimulator recorded the highest level in the content of rice grains of the unsaturated fatty acid oleic acid (39.86)%, and that the treatment of Cifamin and potassium (Ci+K) gave the highest value of the content of rice grains of linoleic acid (45.15) %. The foliar spray with Fertigrain (Fer) stimulator excelled in giving the highest percentage of volatile oils (32.4%) and the foliar spray Atonik and Potassium (At+K) recorded the highest value of hydrocarbon compounds in rice grains (55.74 percent).