Research Guides: Systematic Review: Framing a Research Question

Developing a Research Question

Frameworks

A sequence of а funnel, a circle full of questions and a single big question mark. A sign above this sequence says, "Narrow topic, Think of questions, and Focus question."

Image: PressBooks

The process for developing a research question

There are many ways of framing questions depending on the topic, discipline, or type of questions.

Try Elicit to generate a few options for your initial research topic and narrow it down to a specific population, geographical location, disease, etc. You may explore a similar tool, LitSense to identify additional search terms.

Several frameworks are listed in the table below.

Source:

Foster, M. & Jewell, S. (Eds). (2017). Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: Guide for librarians. Medical Library Association, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 38, Table 3.

_______________________________________________________________________

Watch the 4 min. video on how to frame a research question with PICO.

_______________________________________________________________________

Frameworks for research questions

Framework	Stands for	Source	Discipline/type of question
BeHEMoTh	Be: behavior of interest H: health contest (service/policy/intervention) E: exclusions MoTh: models or theories	Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: Is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information and Libraries Journal, 32(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12108	Questions about theories
CHIP	Context How Issues Population	Shaw, R. (2010). Conducting literature reviews. In M. A. Forester (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Practical Guide (pp. 39-52). London, Sage.	Psychology, qualitative
CIMO	Context Intervention Mechanisms Outcomes	Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671-689). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.	Management, business, administration
CLIP	Client group Location of provided service Improvement/Information/Innovation Professionals (who provides the service?)	Wildridge, V., & Bell, L. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x	Librarianship, management, policy
COPES	Client-Oriented Practical Evidence Search	Gibbs, L. (2003). Evidence-based practice for the helping professions: A practical guide with integrated multimedia. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.	Social work, health care, nursing
ECLIPSE	Expectation Client Location Impact Professionals Service	Wildridge, V., & Bell, L. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x	Management, services, policy, social care
PEO	Population Exposure Outcome	Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: How to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.	Qualitative
PECODR	Patient/population/problem Exposure Comparison Outcome Duration Results	Dawes, M., Pluye, P., Shea, L., Grad, R., Greenberg, A., & Nie, J.-Y. (2007). The identification of clinically important elements within medical journal abstracts: Patient_Population_Problem, Exposure_Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR). Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 15(1), 9–16.	Medicine
PerSPECTiF	Perspective Setting Phenomenon of interest/Problem Environment Comparison (optional) Time/Timing Findings	Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Moore, G., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1).	Qualitative research
PESICO	Person Environments Stakeholders Intervention Comparison Outcome	Schlosser, R. W., & O'Neil-Pirozzi, T. (2006). Problem formulation in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 33, 5-10.	Augmentative and alternative communication
PICO	Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome	Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal club, 123(3), A12-A12.	Clinical medicine
PICO+	Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome +context, patient values, and preferences	Bennett, S., & Bennett, J. W. (2000). The process of evidence‐based practice in occupational therapy: Informing clinical decisions. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 47(4), 171-180.	Occupational therapy
PICOC	Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Context	Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.	Social Sciences
PICOS	Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study Type	Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000097.	Medicine
PICOT	Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Time	Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal club, 123(3), A12-A12.	Education, health care
PICO specific to diagnostic tests	Patient/participants/population Index tests Comparator/reference tests Outcome	Kim, K. W., Lee, J., Choi, S. H., Huh, J., & Park, S. H. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: A practical review for clinical researchers - Part I. General guidance and tips. Korean Journal of Radiology, 16(6), 1175-1187.	Diagnostic questions
PIPOH	Population Intervention Professionals Outcomes Health care setting/context	ADAPTE Collaboration. (2009). The ADAPTE Process: Resource Toolkit for guideline adaptation. Version 2.0. Available from http://www.g-i-n.net	Screening
ProPheT	Problem Phenomenon of interest Time	Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., ... & Rehfuess, E. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. [Technical Report]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2318.0562 ----- Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2. ed.). London: Sage.	Social sciences, qualitative, library science
SPICE	Setting Perspective Interest Comparison Evaluation	Booth, A. (2006). Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 355-368.	Library and information sciences
SPIDER	Sample Phenomenon of interest Design Evaluation Research type	Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative health research, 22(10), 1435-1443.	Health, qualitative research
WWH	Who What How	What was done? (intervention, exposure, policy, phenomenon) How does the what affect the who?

Further reading:

Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 579.