- Mardigian Library
- Subject Guides
Advanced Psychology Research Guide
- Identify Research Gaps
- Online Library Access
- Start Finding Sources
- Search PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES
- Search Psychology Databases
- Find/Browse ebooks
- Find Datasets
- Your Thesis Proposal
- What Do Thesis Projects Involve?
- Develop A Hypothesis
- Identify/Justify Methods & Populations
- Identify/Justify/Find Tests
- Read & Analyze Your Articles
- Select Your Sources
- Use Your Sources
- Avoid Plagiarism
- Write & Cite in APA (7th ed.)
- Manage Your Sources & Citations
- Apply for Research Funding
- Publish Your Research
- Graduate Students
- Browse Master's Theses
- Browse Honors Theses
- Browse Journals
- Use Interlibrary Loan
Nadine Anderson, Behavioral Sciences and Women's & Gender Studies Librarian
Steps for identifying research gaps in the literature
Your Master's thesis should make a significant, novel contribution to the field. Your thesis hypothesis should address a research gap which you identify in the literature, a research question or problem that has not been answered in your research area of interest. This shows that you have developed expertise in the body of knowledge and theoretical issues in your chosen research area.
Step 1: Focus Your Research Area
Before you start trying to identify gaps in the literature, you need to figure out what your area of interest is, and then focus and narrow that research area. If you don't narrow down your initial research area of interest, you'll end up wanting to research everything. You'll overwhelm yourself with all the research gaps you find because there are still a lot of unanswered research questions out there.
- Do some exploratory research on your broad research idea in your course textbook, class notes, in meta-analysis, systematic, and literature reviews, and PsycINFO to identify more specific issues and arguments in your research area and possible relationships between them.
- Read ebooks to get the "big picture" about the research area you're interested in studying. Books and ebooks provide detailed information on your research area, put your research area in context, provide summaries of research, and help you identify major themes and relationships for your study.
- Ask your advisors and other faculty about possible topics or issues within your research area of interest. That being said, you're going to spend over a year immersed in work on your thesis, so make sure you choose issues because you find them deeply interesting , not just because your advisor recommended them.
Step 2: Read, Read, and then Read Some More
Read (a lot of) research articles : this is going to be time-demanding, but you really do need to read through a lot of research articles in your research area to become an expert in it. That being said, what you use from the articles that you read should relate directly back to your focused research questions and hypothesis. Don't waste your time getting sidetracked by issues that don't relate to your research questions and hypothesis.
- Go to Start Finding Sources , Search Databases , and Browse Journals to find journal articles for your research area
- Pay close attention to Introductions , in which authors explain why their research is important, and Suggestions for Future Research , in which authors point readers to areas which lack investigation or need future examination
Follow the research trails of seminal articles and authors using Web of Science and Scopus:
- In Scopus , click on Document Search , enter the article title, click on the article title in the list of search hits, then click on View all ~ citing documents link in the right sidebar for a list of articles that have cited this article
- In Web of Science , enter the article title and choose Title from the right drop down menu , then click on the Times Cited number next to the article to see a list of articles that have cited this article
- In Scopus , click on Author Search , enter the last name and first initial(s) of the author, click on the author's name in the list of search hits, then click on Cited By ~ documents for a list of articles that have cited this author
- In Web of Science , enter the author name and choose Author from the right drop down menu , then click on the Times Cited number next to each article to see a list of articles that have cited this author's article
Read meta-analyses, literature reviews, and systematic reviews : these papers delve deep into the literature, examining the trends and changes over a long period of time in your research area and summaries of previous research findings.
- In PsycINFO , click on literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodologies heading in the sidebar to the right of the list of search hits
- In CINAHL , add systematic reviews to your search
- In Web Of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the sidebar to the right of the list of search hits
Step 3: Map out the Literature :
Keep track of what the authors told you and the questions that occur to you whenever you read anything - an article, a book, a book chapter, a dissertation, etc. This will also help you write your thesis introduction later on and help you avoid unconscious plagiarism .Some more tips:
- Use mind maps, tables, charts, pictures, post-it notes to map out the literature, whatever works for you.
- Research each of your questions to see if there are people out there who had the same questions and found answers to them
- Science Direct , Web of Science , and Wiley Online Library databases help you follow the research trail by listing articles that have since cited the research article you're reading
If you find don't find any answers to one of your questions, you've probably found a research gap from which you can develop a thesis hypothesis and experimental project. Get feedback from your advisors before you get too carried away, though!
- Get started by considering your central thesis question
- How do the sources you've found connect to that question and help you answer it?
- How do the sources connect to and build off of one another?
- << Previous: What Do Thesis Projects Involve?
- Next: Develop A Hypothesis >>
- Last Updated: Feb 12, 2023 4:54 PM
- URL: https://guides.umd.umich.edu/psychology
Call us at 313-593-5559
Chat with us
Text us: 313-486-5399
Email us your question
- 4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48128, USA
- Phone: 313-593-5000
- Maps & Directions
- M+Google Mail
- Emergency Information
- UM-Dearborn Connect
- Wolverine Access
Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs : Medical Care
- Subscribe to journal Subscribe
- Get new issue alerts Get alerts
Secondary Logo
Journal logo.
Colleague's E-mail is Invalid
Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.
Save my selection
Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs
Hempel, Susanne PhD *,† ; Gore, Kristie PhD ‡ ; Belsher, Bradley PhD §
* RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Santa Monica
† University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
‡ RAND, National Security Research Division, Arlington
§ Defense Health Agency, Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE), Falls Church, VA
Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Psychological Health Center of Excellence. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Psychological Health Center of Excellence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the United States government.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Reprints: Susanne Hempel, PhD, RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407. E-mail: [email protected] .
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Background:
Evidence synthesis is key in promoting evidence-based health care, but it is resource-intense. Methods are needed to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis needs within health care systems. We describe a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.
Methods:
Scoping searches targeted 15 sources, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Guidelines and National Defense Authorization Acts. We screened for evidence gaps in psychological health management approaches relevant to the target population. We translated gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Gaps amenable to evidence synthesis format provided the basis for stakeholder input. Stakeholders rated topics for their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. Feasibility scans determined whether topics were ready to be pursued, that is, sufficient literature exists, and duplicative efforts are avoided.
Results:
We identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. Areas included: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19), suicide prevention (14), depression (9), bipolar disorder (9), substance use (24), traumatic brain injury (20), anxiety (1), and cross-cutting (14) synthesis topics. Stakeholder input helped prioritize 19 potential PTSD topics and 22 other psychological health topics. To date, 46 topics have undergone feasibility scans. We document lessons learned across clinical topics and research methods.
Conclusion:
We describe a transparent and structured approach to evidence synthesis topic selection for a health care system using scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis format, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.
Evidence synthesis is an essential step in promoting evidence-based medicine across health systems; it facilitates the translation of research to practice. A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and policy decisions. 1 However, systematic reviews are resource-intense undertakings. In a resource-constrained environment, before an evidence review is commissioned, the need and the feasibility of the review must be established.
Establishing the need for the review can be achieved through a research gap analysis or needs assessment. Identification of a gap serves as the first step in developing a new research question. 2 Research gaps in health care do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Research gaps are only critical where knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, and policymakers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. Evidence synthesis enables the assessment of whether a research gap continues to exist or whether there is adequate evidence to close the knowledge gap.
Furthermore, a gap analysis often identifies multiple, competing gaps that are worthwhile to be pursued. Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritization is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritization process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the health care system and the local needs of the health care stakeholders. A process of stakeholder input is an important mechanism to ensure that the evidence review will meet local needs as well to identify a receptive audience of the review findings.
In addition to establishing the need for an evidence review, the feasibility of conducting the review must also be established. In conducting primary research, feasibility is often mainly a question of available resources. For evidence reviews, the resources, the availability of primary research, and the presence of existing evidence reviews on the topic need to be explored. Not all topics are amenable for a systematic review which focus on a specific range of research questions and rely heavily on published literature. Furthermore, evidence review synthesizes the existing evidence; hence, if there is insufficient evidence in the primary research literature, an evidence review is not useful. Establishing a lack of evidence is a worthwhile exercise since it identifies the need for further research. However, most health care delivery organizations will be keen to prioritize areas that can be synthesized, that is, investing in synthesizing a body of research sizable enough to derive meaningful results. For evidence reviews, the presence of existing evidence syntheses is also an important consideration, in particular, to determine the incremental validity of a new review. Although primary research benefits profoundly by replication, secondary literature, in particular in the context of existing high-quality reviews and/or limited evidence, may not add anything to our knowledge base. 3
This work describes a structured and transparent approach to identify and prioritize areas of psychological health that are important and that can be feasibly addressed by a synthesis of the research literature. It describes a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System (MHS) and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.
This project is anchored in the relationship between the Defense Health Agency Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE) and the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), one of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) dedicated to providing long-term analytic support to the Defense Health Agency. PHCoE, an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System funded a series of systematic reviews and evidence maps synthesizing psychological research. The project draws on the expertise of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) located at RAND, a center specializing in evidence synthesis. The project included scoping searches, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans. The project is ongoing; this manuscript describes methods and results from June 2016 to September 2018. The project was assessed by our Human Subject Protection staff and determined to be exempt (date July 7, 2016, ID ND3621; August 6, 2017, ID ND3714).
The following describes the process, Figure 1 provides a visual overview.
Scoping Searches to Identify Evidence Synthesis Gaps
Scoping searches targeted pertinent sources for evidence gaps. The searches focused on clinical conditions and interventions relevant to psychological health, including biological psychiatry, health care services research, and mental health comorbidity. Proposed topics and study populations were not limited by deployment status or deployment eligibility, but the topic section considered the prevalence of clinical conditions among Department of Defense active duty military personnel managed by the MHS. The scoping searches excluded evidence gaps addressing children and adolescents and clinical conditions exclusively relevant to veterans managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Scoping Search Sources
We screened 15 sources in total for evidence synthesis gaps.
Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines were a key source for documented evidence gaps. 4–9 Recently updated guidelines were screened only for evidence gaps that indicated a lack of synthesis of existing research or content areas that were outside the scope of that guideline (guidelines rely primarily on published systematic reviews and can only review a limited number of topic areas).
We consulted the current report of the committee on armed services of the House of Representatives regarding the proposed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the report for the upcoming fiscal year. 10,11 We specifically screened the report for research priorities identified for psychological health. We also screened the published National Research Action Plan designed to improve access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families. 12
We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury. We searched for publications published since 2000–2016 in the most relevant databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, that had the words research gap, knowledge gap, or research priority in the title and addressed psychological health (Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). The search retrieved 203 citations. Six publications were considered potentially relevant and obtained as full text, 1 source was subsequently excluded because the authors conducted a literature search <3 years ago and it was deemed unlikely that a new review would identify substantially more eligible studies. 13–19
We also used an analysis of the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in the MHS 20 to identify interventions that were popular with patients but for which potentially little evidence-based guidance exists. We focused our scoping efforts on complementary approaches such as stress management, hypnotherapy, massage, biofeedback, chiropractic, and music therapy to align with the funding scope. In the next step, we reviewed the existing clinical practice guidelines to determine whether clinicians have guidance regarding these approaches. The Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel 21 is an anonymous survey conducted every 3 years on service members with the aim of identifying interventions or health behaviors patients currently use. To address evidence gaps most relevant to patients, we screened the survey results, and then matched the more prevalent needs identified with guidance provided in relevant clinical practice guidelines.
We consulted the priority review list assembled by the Cochrane group to identify research needs for systematic reviews. We screened the 2015–2017 lists for mental health topics that are open to new authors, that is, those that do not have an author team currently dedicated to the topic. None of the currently available topics appeared relevant to psychological health and no topics were added to the table. We also consulted with ongoing federally funded projects to identify evidence gaps that were beyond the scope of the other projects. In addition, we screened a list of psychological health research priorities developed at PHCoE for knowledge gaps that could be addressed in systematic reviews or evidence maps. Finally, we screened resources available on MHS web sites for evidence gaps.
Gap Analysis Procedure and Approach to Translating Gaps into Evidence Review Format
We first screened these sources for knowledge gaps, regardless of considerations of whether the gap is amenable to evidence review. However, we did not include research gaps where the source explicitly indicated that the knowledge gap is due to the lack of primary research. We distinguished 5 evidence gap domains and abstracted gaps across pertinent areas: interventions or diagnostic questions, treatment outcomes or specific populations, and health services research and health care delivery models.
We then translated the evidence gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Evidence maps provide a broad overview of large research areas using data visualizations to document the presence and absence of evidence. 22 Similar to scoping reviews, evidence maps do not necessarily address the effects of interventions but can be broader in scope. Systematic reviews are a standardized research methodology designed to answer clinical and policy questions with published research using meta-analysis to estimate effect sizes and formal grading of the quality of evidence. We considered systematic reviews for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness questions regarding specific intervention and diagnostic approaches.
Stakeholder Input
Evidence synthesis gaps that were determined to be amenable to systematic review or evidence map methods provided the basis for stakeholder input. Although all topics were reviewed by project personnel, we also identified psychological health service leads for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within the Defense Health Agency as key stakeholders to be included in the topic selection process. To date, 2 rounds of formal ratings by stakeholders have been undertaken.
The first round focused on the need for systematic review covering issues related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The second round focused on other potential psychological health topics determined to be compatible with the MHS mission. Represented clinical areas were suicide prevention and aftercare, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorder including alcohol and opioid use disorder, and chronic pain. All of the potential topics addressed either the effects of clinical interventions or health service research questions.
Stakeholders rated the topics based on their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. The raters used a scale 5-point rating scale ranging from “No impact” to “Very high impact.” In addition, stakeholders were able to add additional suggestions for evidence review. We analyzed the mean, the mode, and individual stakeholder rating indicating “high impact” for individual topics.
Feasibility Scans
Feasibility scans provided an estimate of the volume and the type of existing research literature which is informative for 3 reasons. First, this process determined whether sufficient research was available to inform a systematic review or an evidence map. Second, feasibility scans can provide an estimate of the required resources for an evidence review by establishing whether only a small literature base or a large number of research studies exists. Finally, feasibility scans identify existing high-profile evidence synthesis reports that could make a new synthesis obsolete.
Feasibility scans for potential evidence maps concentrated on the size of the body of research that would need to be screened and the relevant synthesis questions that can inform how this research should be organized in the evidence map. Feasibility scans for systematic reviews aimed to determine the number of relevant studies, existing high-quality reviews, and the number of studies not covered in existing reviews. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the focus of most of the systematic review topics, that is, strong research evidence that could inform clinical practice guideline committees to recommend either for or against interventions. An experienced systematic reviewer used PubMed, a very well-maintained and user-friendly database for biomedical literature, developed preliminary search strategies, and applied database search filters (eg, for RCTs or systematic reviews) in preliminary literature searches to estimate the research volume for each topic.
Scans also identified any existing high-quality evidence review published by agencies specializing in unbiased evidence syntheses such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, the Evidence Synthesis Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Health Technology Assessment program. We used the databases PubMed and PubMed Health to identify reports. We appraised the scope, relevance and publication year of the existing high-profile evidence reviews. The research base for psychological health develops rapidly and evidence syntheses need to ensure that current clinical policies reflect the best available evidence. When determining the feasibility and appropriateness of a new systematic review, we took the results of the original review and any new studies that had been published subsequent to the systematic review on the same topic into account.
The following results are described: the results of the scoping searches and gap analysis, the translation of gaps into evidence synthesis format, the stakeholder input ratings, and the feasibility scans.
Scoping Searches and Gap Analysis Results
The scoping search and gap analysis identified a large number of evidence gaps as documented in the gap analysis table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). Across sources, we identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. The evidence gaps varied considerably with regard to scope and specificity, for example, highlighting knowledge gaps in recommendations for medications for specific clinical indications or treatment combinations 4 to pointing out to gaps in supporting caregivers. 11 The largest group of evidence gaps were documented for interventions. This included open questions for individual interventions (eg, ketamine) 12 as well as the best format and modality within an intervention domain (eg, use of telehealth). 6 Diagnostic evidence gaps included open questions regarding predictive risk factors that could be used in suicide prevention 8 and the need for personalized treatments. 12 Outcome evidence gaps often pointed to the lack of measured outcomes to include cost-effectiveness as well as the lack of knowledge on hypothesized effects, such as increased access or decreased stigma associated with technology-based modalities. 23 Population evidence gaps addressed specific patient populations such as complex patients 5 and family members of service members. 11 The health services evidence gaps addressed care support through technology (eg, videoconferencing 23 ) as well as treatment coordination within health care organizations such as how treatment for substance use disorder should be coordinated with treatment for co-occurring conditions. 4
Potential Evidence Synthesis Topics
The gaps were translated into potential evidence map or systematic review topics. This translation process took into account that some topics cannot easily be operationalized as an evidence review. For example, knowledge gaps regarding prevalence or utilization estimates were hindered by the lack of publicly available data. In addition, we noted that some review questions may require an exhaustive search and a full-text review of the literature because the information cannot be searched for directly, and hence were outside the budget restraints.
The clinical areas and number of topics were: PTSD (n=19), suicide prevention (n=14), depression (n=9), bipolar disorder (n=9), substance use (n=24), traumatic brain injury (n=20), anxiety (n=1), and cross-cutting (n=14) evidence synthesis topics. All topic areas are documented in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).
Stakeholder Input Results
Stakeholders rated 19 PTSD-related research gaps and suggested an additional 5 topics for evidence review, addressing both preventions as well as treatment topics. Mean ratings for topics ranged from 1.75 to 3.5 on a scale from 0 (no impact potential) to 4 (high potential for impact). Thus, although identified as research gaps, the potential of an evidence review to have an important impact on the MHS varied across the topics. Only 2 topics received a mean score of ≥3 (high potential), including predictors of PTSD treatment retention and response and PTSD treatment dosing, duration, and sequencing . In addition, raters’ opinions varied considerably across some topics with SDs ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 across all topics.
The stakeholders rated 22 other psychological health topics, suggested 2 additional topics for evidence review, and revised 2 original topics indicating which aspect of the research gap would be most important to address. Mean scores for the rated topics ranged from 0.25 to 3.75, with the SDs for each item ranging from 0 to 1.4. Six topics received an average score of ≥3, primarily focused on the topics of suicide prevention, substance use disorders, and telehealth interventions. Opinions on other topics varied widely across service leads.
Feasibility Scan Results
Evidence review topics that were rated by stakeholders as having some potential for impact (using a rating cutoff score>1) within the MHS were selected for formal feasibility scans. To date, 46 topics have been subjected to feasibility scans. Of these, 11 were evaluated as potential evidence map, 17 as a systematic review, and 18 as either at the time of the topic suggestion. The results of the feasibility scans are documented in the table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, https://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).
The feasibility scan result table shows the topic, topic modification suggestions based on literature reviews, and the mean stakeholder impact rating. The table shows the employed search strategy to determine the feasibility; the estimated number of RCTs in the database PubMed; the number and citation of Cochrane, Evidence Synthesis Program, and Health Technology Assessment reviews, that is, high-quality syntheses; and the estimated number of RCTs published after the latest existing systematic review that had been published on the topic.
Each potential evidence review topic was discussed in a narrative review report that documented the reason for determining the topic to be feasible or not feasible. Reasons for determining the topic to be not feasible included the lack of primary research for an evidence map or systematic review, the presence of an ongoing research project that may influence the evidence review scope, and the presence of an existing high-quality evidence review. Some topics were shown to be feasible upon further modification; this included topics that were partially addressed in existing reviews or topics where the review scope would need to be substantially changed to result in a high-impact evidence review. Topics to be judged feasible met all outlined criteria, that is, the topic could be addressed in a systematic review or evidence map, there were sufficient studies to justify a review, and the review would not merely replicate an existing review but make a novel contribution to the evidence base.
The project describes a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis topics using scoping reviews, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.
The work demonstrates an approach to establishing and evaluating evidence synthesis gaps. It has been repeatedly noted that research gap analyses often lack transparency with little information on analytic criteria and selection processes. 24,25 In addition, research need identification may not be informed by systematic literature searches documenting gaps but primarily rely on often unstructured content expert input. 26,27 Evidence synthesis needs assessment is a new field that to date has received very little attention. However, as health care delivery organizations move towards providing evidence-based treatments and the existing research continue to grow, both evidence reviews and evidence review gap identification and prioritization will become more prominent.
One of the lessons learned is that the topic selection process added to the timeline and required additional resources. The scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis topics, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans each added time and the project required a longer period of performance compared to previous evidence synthesis projects. The project components were undertaken sequentially and had to be divided into topic areas. For example, it was deemed too much to ask for stakeholder input for all 122 topics identified as potential evidence review topics. Furthermore, we needed to be flexible to be able to respond to unanticipated congressional requests for evidence reviews. However, our process of identifying synthesis gaps, checking whether topics can be translated into syntheses, obtaining stakeholder input to ensure that the gaps are meaningful and need filling, and estimating the feasibility and avoiding duplicative efforts, has merit considering the alternative. More targeted funding of evidence syntheses ensures relevance and while resources need to be spent on the steps we are describing, these are small investments compared to the resources required for a full systematic review or evidence map.
The documented stakeholder engagement approach was useful for many reasons, not just for ensuring that the selection of evidence synthesis topics was transparent and structured. The stakeholders were alerted to the evidence synthesis project and provided input for further topic refinement. This process also supported the identification of a ‘customer’ after the review was completed, that is, a stakeholder who is keen on using the evidence review is likely to take action on its results and ready to translate the findings into clinical practice. The research to practice gap is substantial and the challenges of translating research to practice are widely documented. 28–30 Inefficient research translation delays delivery of proven clinical practices and can lead to wasteful research and practice investments.
The project had several strengths and limitations. The project describes a successful, transparent, and structured process to engage stakeholders and identifies important and feasible evidence review topics. However, the approach was developed to address the specific military psychological health care system needs, and therefore the process may not be generalizable to all other health care delivery organizations. Source selection was tailored to psychological health synthesis needs and process modifications (ie, sources to identify gaps) are needed for organizations aiming to establish a similar procedure. To keep the approach manageable, feasibility scans used only 1 database and we developed only preliminary, not comprehensive searches. Hence, some uncertainty about the true evidence base for the different topics remained; feasibility scans can only estimate the available research. Furthermore, the selected stakeholders were limited to a small number of service leads. A broader panel of stakeholders would have likely provided additional input. In addition, all evaluations of the literature relied on the expertise of experienced systematic reviewers; any replication of the process will require some staff with expertise in the evidence review. Finally, as outlined, all described processes added to the project timeline compounding the challenges of providing timely systematic reviews for practitioners and policymakers. 31,32
We have described a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize areas of evidence synthesis for a health care system. Scoping searches and feasibility scans identified gaps in the literature that would benefit from evidence review. Stakeholder input helped ensure the relevance of review topics and created a receptive audience for targeted evidence synthesis. The approach aims to advance the field of evidence synthesis needs assessment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Laura Raaen, Margaret Maglione, Gulrez Azhar, Margie Danz, and Thomas Concannon for content input and Aneesa Motala and Naemma Golshan for administrative assistance.
- Cited Here |
- PubMed | CrossRef
- View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef
evidence review; evidence synthesis; gap analysis; research prioritization; translational science
Supplemental Digital Content
- MLR_2019_07_01_HEMPEL_MDC-D-19-00088_SDC1.docx; [Word] (63 KB)
- + Favorites
- View in Gallery
Research Process
- Brainstorming
- Explore Google
- Explore Web Resources
- Explore Background Information
- Explore Books
- Explore Scholarly Articles
- Narrowing a Topic
- Primary and Secondary Resources
- Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
- Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
- Grey Literature
- Clinical Trials
- Evidence Based Treatment
- Scholarly Research
- Database Research Log
- Search Limits
- Keyword Searching
- Boolean Operators
- Phrase Searching
- Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
- Proximity Searching
- Field Codes
- Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
- Reading a Scientific Article
- Website Evaluation
- Article Keywords and Subject Terms
- Cited References
- Citing Articles
- Related Results
- Search Within Publication
- Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
- Personal Database Accounts
- Persistent URLs
- Literature Gap and Future Research
- Web of Knowledge
- Annual Reviews
- Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
- Finding Seminal Works
- Exhausting the Literature
- Finding Dissertations
- Researching Theoretical Frameworks
- Research Methods & Design
- Tests and Measurements
- Organizing Research & Citations
- Scholarly Publication
- Learn the Library
Research Articles
These examples below illustrate how researchers from different disciplines identified gaps in existing literature. For additional examples, try a Roadrunner Search using this search string: ("Literature review") AND (gap*)
- Addressing the Recent Developments and Potential Gaps in the Literature of Corporate Sustainability
- Applications of Psychological Science to Teaching and Learning: Gaps in the Literature
- Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling Among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis
- Do Psychological Diversity Climate, HRM Practices, and Personality Traits (Big Five) Influence Multicultural Workforce Job Satisfaction and Performance? Current Scenario, Literature Gap, and Future Research Directions
- Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field
- Evidence and Gaps in the Literature on HIV/STI Prevention Interventions Targeting Migrants in Receiving Countries: A Scoping Review
- Homeless Indigenous Veterans and the Current Gaps in Knowledge: The State of the Literature
- A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling
- A Review of Higher Education Image and Reputation Literature: Knowledge Gaps and a Research Agenda
- Trends and Gaps in Empirical Research on Open Educational Resources (OER): A Systematic Mapping of the Literature from 2015 to 2019
- Where Should We Go From Here? Identified Gaps in the Literature in Psychosocial Interventions for Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety
What is a ‘gap in the literature’?
The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is under-explored. This could be a population or sample (size, type, location, etc.), research method, data collection and/or analysis, or other research variables or conditions.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that just because you identify a gap in the research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your research question is worthy of exploration. You will want to make sure that your research will have valuable practical and/or theoretical implications. In other words, answering the research question could either improve existing practice and/or inform professional decision-making (Applied Degree), or it could revise, build upon, or create theoretical frameworks informing research design and practice (Ph.D Degree). See the Dissertation Center for additional information about dissertation criteria at NU.
For a additional information on gap statements, see the following:
- How to find a gap in the literature
- Write Like a Scientist: Gap Statements
How do you identify the gaps?
Conducting an exhaustive literature review is your first step. As you search for journal articles, you will need to read critically across the breadth of the literature to identify these gaps. You goal should be to find a ‘space’ or opening for contributing new research. The first step is gathering a broad range of research articles on your topic. You may want to look for research that approaches the topic from a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.
See the videos below for further instruction on identifying a gap in the literature.
Identifying a Gap in the Literature - Dr. Laurie Bedford
How Do You Identify Gaps in the Literature? - SAGE Research Methods
Literature Gap & Future Research - Library Workshop
This workshop presents effective search techniques for identifying a gap in the literature and recommendations for future research.
Where can you locate research gaps?
As you begin to gather the literature, you will want to critically read for what has, and has not, been learned from the research. Use the Discussion and Future Research sections of the articles to understand what the researchers have found and where they point out future or additional research areas. This is similar to identifying a gap in the literature, however, future research statements come from a single study rather than an exhaustive search. You will want to check the literature to see if those research questions have already been answered.
Roadrunner Search
Identifying the gap in the research relies on an exhaustive review of the literature. Remember, researchers may not explicitly state that a gap in the literature exists; you may need to thoroughly review and assess the research to make that determination yourself.
However, there are techniques that you can use when searching in Roadrunner Search to help identify gaps in the literature. You may use search terms such as "literature gap " or "future research" "along with your subject keywords to pinpoint articles that include these types of statements.
Was this resource helpful?
- << Previous: Resources for a Literature Review
- Next: Web of Knowledge >>
- Last Updated: Feb 27, 2023 9:52 AM
- URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess
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
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Open Access
Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs
Susanne hempel.
* RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Santa Monica
† University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
Kristie Gore
‡ RAND, National Security Research Division, Arlington
Bradley Belsher
§ Defense Health Agency, Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE), Falls Church, VA
Associated Data
Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website, www.lww-medicalcare.com .
Background:
Evidence synthesis is key in promoting evidence-based health care, but it is resource-intense. Methods are needed to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis needs within health care systems. We describe a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.
Scoping searches targeted 15 sources, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Guidelines and National Defense Authorization Acts. We screened for evidence gaps in psychological health management approaches relevant to the target population. We translated gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Gaps amenable to evidence synthesis format provided the basis for stakeholder input. Stakeholders rated topics for their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. Feasibility scans determined whether topics were ready to be pursued, that is, sufficient literature exists, and duplicative efforts are avoided.
We identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. Areas included: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19), suicide prevention (14), depression (9), bipolar disorder (9), substance use (24), traumatic brain injury (20), anxiety (1), and cross-cutting (14) synthesis topics. Stakeholder input helped prioritize 19 potential PTSD topics and 22 other psychological health topics. To date, 46 topics have undergone feasibility scans. We document lessons learned across clinical topics and research methods.
Conclusion:
We describe a transparent and structured approach to evidence synthesis topic selection for a health care system using scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis format, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.
Evidence synthesis is an essential step in promoting evidence-based medicine across health systems; it facilitates the translation of research to practice. A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and policy decisions. 1 However, systematic reviews are resource-intense undertakings. In a resource-constrained environment, before an evidence review is commissioned, the need and the feasibility of the review must be established.
Establishing the need for the review can be achieved through a research gap analysis or needs assessment. Identification of a gap serves as the first step in developing a new research question. 2 Research gaps in health care do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Research gaps are only critical where knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, and policymakers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. Evidence synthesis enables the assessment of whether a research gap continues to exist or whether there is adequate evidence to close the knowledge gap.
Furthermore, a gap analysis often identifies multiple, competing gaps that are worthwhile to be pursued. Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritization is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritization process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the health care system and the local needs of the health care stakeholders. A process of stakeholder input is an important mechanism to ensure that the evidence review will meet local needs as well to identify a receptive audience of the review findings.
In addition to establishing the need for an evidence review, the feasibility of conducting the review must also be established. In conducting primary research, feasibility is often mainly a question of available resources. For evidence reviews, the resources, the availability of primary research, and the presence of existing evidence reviews on the topic need to be explored. Not all topics are amenable for a systematic review which focus on a specific range of research questions and rely heavily on published literature. Furthermore, evidence review synthesizes the existing evidence; hence, if there is insufficient evidence in the primary research literature, an evidence review is not useful. Establishing a lack of evidence is a worthwhile exercise since it identifies the need for further research. However, most health care delivery organizations will be keen to prioritize areas that can be synthesized, that is, investing in synthesizing a body of research sizable enough to derive meaningful results. For evidence reviews, the presence of existing evidence syntheses is also an important consideration, in particular, to determine the incremental validity of a new review. Although primary research benefits profoundly by replication, secondary literature, in particular in the context of existing high-quality reviews and/or limited evidence, may not add anything to our knowledge base. 3
This work describes a structured and transparent approach to identify and prioritize areas of psychological health that are important and that can be feasibly addressed by a synthesis of the research literature. It describes a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System (MHS) and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.
This project is anchored in the relationship between the Defense Health Agency Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE) and the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), one of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) dedicated to providing long-term analytic support to the Defense Health Agency. PHCoE, an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System funded a series of systematic reviews and evidence maps synthesizing psychological research. The project draws on the expertise of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) located at RAND, a center specializing in evidence synthesis. The project included scoping searches, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans. The project is ongoing; this manuscript describes methods and results from June 2016 to September 2018. The project was assessed by our Human Subject Protection staff and determined to be exempt (date July 7, 2016, ID ND3621; August 6, 2017, ID ND3714).
The following describes the process, Figure Figure1 1 provides a visual overview.
Process of identifying research gaps and prioritizing psychological health evidence synthesis needs.
Scoping Searches to Identify Evidence Synthesis Gaps
Scoping searches targeted pertinent sources for evidence gaps. The searches focused on clinical conditions and interventions relevant to psychological health, including biological psychiatry, health care services research, and mental health comorbidity. Proposed topics and study populations were not limited by deployment status or deployment eligibility, but the topic section considered the prevalence of clinical conditions among Department of Defense active duty military personnel managed by the MHS. The scoping searches excluded evidence gaps addressing children and adolescents and clinical conditions exclusively relevant to veterans managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Scoping Search Sources
We screened 15 sources in total for evidence synthesis gaps.
Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines were a key source for documented evidence gaps. 4 – 9 Recently updated guidelines were screened only for evidence gaps that indicated a lack of synthesis of existing research or content areas that were outside the scope of that guideline (guidelines rely primarily on published systematic reviews and can only review a limited number of topic areas).
We consulted the current report of the committee on armed services of the House of Representatives regarding the proposed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the report for the upcoming fiscal year. 10 , 11 We specifically screened the report for research priorities identified for psychological health. We also screened the published National Research Action Plan designed to improve access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families. 12
We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury. We searched for publications published since 2000–2016 in the most relevant databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, that had the words research gap, knowledge gap, or research priority in the title and addressed psychological health (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). The search retrieved 203 citations. Six publications were considered potentially relevant and obtained as full text, 1 source was subsequently excluded because the authors conducted a literature search <3 years ago and it was deemed unlikely that a new review would identify substantially more eligible studies. 13 – 19
We also used an analysis of the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in the MHS 20 to identify interventions that were popular with patients but for which potentially little evidence-based guidance exists. We focused our scoping efforts on complementary approaches such as stress management, hypnotherapy, massage, biofeedback, chiropractic, and music therapy to align with the funding scope. In the next step, we reviewed the existing clinical practice guidelines to determine whether clinicians have guidance regarding these approaches. The Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel 21 is an anonymous survey conducted every 3 years on service members with the aim of identifying interventions or health behaviors patients currently use. To address evidence gaps most relevant to patients, we screened the survey results, and then matched the more prevalent needs identified with guidance provided in relevant clinical practice guidelines.
We consulted the priority review list assembled by the Cochrane group to identify research needs for systematic reviews. We screened the 2015–2017 lists for mental health topics that are open to new authors, that is, those that do not have an author team currently dedicated to the topic. None of the currently available topics appeared relevant to psychological health and no topics were added to the table. We also consulted with ongoing federally funded projects to identify evidence gaps that were beyond the scope of the other projects. In addition, we screened a list of psychological health research priorities developed at PHCoE for knowledge gaps that could be addressed in systematic reviews or evidence maps. Finally, we screened resources available on MHS web sites for evidence gaps.
Gap Analysis Procedure and Approach to Translating Gaps into Evidence Review Format
We first screened these sources for knowledge gaps, regardless of considerations of whether the gap is amenable to evidence review. However, we did not include research gaps where the source explicitly indicated that the knowledge gap is due to the lack of primary research. We distinguished 5 evidence gap domains and abstracted gaps across pertinent areas: interventions or diagnostic questions, treatment outcomes or specific populations, and health services research and health care delivery models.
We then translated the evidence gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Evidence maps provide a broad overview of large research areas using data visualizations to document the presence and absence of evidence. 22 Similar to scoping reviews, evidence maps do not necessarily address the effects of interventions but can be broader in scope. Systematic reviews are a standardized research methodology designed to answer clinical and policy questions with published research using meta-analysis to estimate effect sizes and formal grading of the quality of evidence. We considered systematic reviews for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness questions regarding specific intervention and diagnostic approaches.
Stakeholder Input
Evidence synthesis gaps that were determined to be amenable to systematic review or evidence map methods provided the basis for stakeholder input. Although all topics were reviewed by project personnel, we also identified psychological health service leads for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within the Defense Health Agency as key stakeholders to be included in the topic selection process. To date, 2 rounds of formal ratings by stakeholders have been undertaken.
The first round focused on the need for systematic review covering issues related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The second round focused on other potential psychological health topics determined to be compatible with the MHS mission. Represented clinical areas were suicide prevention and aftercare, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorder including alcohol and opioid use disorder, and chronic pain. All of the potential topics addressed either the effects of clinical interventions or health service research questions.
Stakeholders rated the topics based on their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. The raters used a scale 5-point rating scale ranging from “No impact” to “Very high impact.” In addition, stakeholders were able to add additional suggestions for evidence review. We analyzed the mean, the mode, and individual stakeholder rating indicating “high impact” for individual topics.
Feasibility Scans
Feasibility scans provided an estimate of the volume and the type of existing research literature which is informative for 3 reasons. First, this process determined whether sufficient research was available to inform a systematic review or an evidence map. Second, feasibility scans can provide an estimate of the required resources for an evidence review by establishing whether only a small literature base or a large number of research studies exists. Finally, feasibility scans identify existing high-profile evidence synthesis reports that could make a new synthesis obsolete.
Feasibility scans for potential evidence maps concentrated on the size of the body of research that would need to be screened and the relevant synthesis questions that can inform how this research should be organized in the evidence map. Feasibility scans for systematic reviews aimed to determine the number of relevant studies, existing high-quality reviews, and the number of studies not covered in existing reviews. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the focus of most of the systematic review topics, that is, strong research evidence that could inform clinical practice guideline committees to recommend either for or against interventions. An experienced systematic reviewer used PubMed, a very well-maintained and user-friendly database for biomedical literature, developed preliminary search strategies, and applied database search filters (eg, for RCTs or systematic reviews) in preliminary literature searches to estimate the research volume for each topic.
Scans also identified any existing high-quality evidence review published by agencies specializing in unbiased evidence syntheses such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, the Evidence Synthesis Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Health Technology Assessment program. We used the databases PubMed and PubMed Health to identify reports. We appraised the scope, relevance and publication year of the existing high-profile evidence reviews. The research base for psychological health develops rapidly and evidence syntheses need to ensure that current clinical policies reflect the best available evidence. When determining the feasibility and appropriateness of a new systematic review, we took the results of the original review and any new studies that had been published subsequent to the systematic review on the same topic into account.
The following results are described: the results of the scoping searches and gap analysis, the translation of gaps into evidence synthesis format, the stakeholder input ratings, and the feasibility scans.
Scoping Searches and Gap Analysis Results
The scoping search and gap analysis identified a large number of evidence gaps as documented in the gap analysis table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). Across sources, we identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. The evidence gaps varied considerably with regard to scope and specificity, for example, highlighting knowledge gaps in recommendations for medications for specific clinical indications or treatment combinations 4 to pointing out to gaps in supporting caregivers. 11 The largest group of evidence gaps were documented for interventions. This included open questions for individual interventions (eg, ketamine) 12 as well as the best format and modality within an intervention domain (eg, use of telehealth). 6 Diagnostic evidence gaps included open questions regarding predictive risk factors that could be used in suicide prevention 8 and the need for personalized treatments. 12 Outcome evidence gaps often pointed to the lack of measured outcomes to include cost-effectiveness as well as the lack of knowledge on hypothesized effects, such as increased access or decreased stigma associated with technology-based modalities. 23 Population evidence gaps addressed specific patient populations such as complex patients 5 and family members of service members. 11 The health services evidence gaps addressed care support through technology (eg, videoconferencing 23 ) as well as treatment coordination within health care organizations such as how treatment for substance use disorder should be coordinated with treatment for co-occurring conditions. 4
Potential Evidence Synthesis Topics
The gaps were translated into potential evidence map or systematic review topics. This translation process took into account that some topics cannot easily be operationalized as an evidence review. For example, knowledge gaps regarding prevalence or utilization estimates were hindered by the lack of publicly available data. In addition, we noted that some review questions may require an exhaustive search and a full-text review of the literature because the information cannot be searched for directly, and hence were outside the budget restraints.
The clinical areas and number of topics were: PTSD (n=19), suicide prevention (n=14), depression (n=9), bipolar disorder (n=9), substance use (n=24), traumatic brain injury (n=20), anxiety (n=1), and cross-cutting (n=14) evidence synthesis topics. All topic areas are documented in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).
Stakeholder Input Results
Stakeholders rated 19 PTSD-related research gaps and suggested an additional 5 topics for evidence review, addressing both preventions as well as treatment topics. Mean ratings for topics ranged from 1.75 to 3.5 on a scale from 0 (no impact potential) to 4 (high potential for impact). Thus, although identified as research gaps, the potential of an evidence review to have an important impact on the MHS varied across the topics. Only 2 topics received a mean score of ≥3 (high potential), including predictors of PTSD treatment retention and response and PTSD treatment dosing, duration, and sequencing . In addition, raters’ opinions varied considerably across some topics with SDs ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 across all topics.
The stakeholders rated 22 other psychological health topics, suggested 2 additional topics for evidence review, and revised 2 original topics indicating which aspect of the research gap would be most important to address. Mean scores for the rated topics ranged from 0.25 to 3.75, with the SDs for each item ranging from 0 to 1.4. Six topics received an average score of ≥3, primarily focused on the topics of suicide prevention, substance use disorders, and telehealth interventions. Opinions on other topics varied widely across service leads.
Feasibility Scan Results
Evidence review topics that were rated by stakeholders as having some potential for impact (using a rating cutoff score>1) within the MHS were selected for formal feasibility scans. To date, 46 topics have been subjected to feasibility scans. Of these, 11 were evaluated as potential evidence map, 17 as a systematic review, and 18 as either at the time of the topic suggestion. The results of the feasibility scans are documented in the table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).
The feasibility scan result table shows the topic, topic modification suggestions based on literature reviews, and the mean stakeholder impact rating. The table shows the employed search strategy to determine the feasibility; the estimated number of RCTs in the database PubMed; the number and citation of Cochrane, Evidence Synthesis Program, and Health Technology Assessment reviews, that is, high-quality syntheses; and the estimated number of RCTs published after the latest existing systematic review that had been published on the topic.
Each potential evidence review topic was discussed in a narrative review report that documented the reason for determining the topic to be feasible or not feasible. Reasons for determining the topic to be not feasible included the lack of primary research for an evidence map or systematic review, the presence of an ongoing research project that may influence the evidence review scope, and the presence of an existing high-quality evidence review. Some topics were shown to be feasible upon further modification; this included topics that were partially addressed in existing reviews or topics where the review scope would need to be substantially changed to result in a high-impact evidence review. Topics to be judged feasible met all outlined criteria, that is, the topic could be addressed in a systematic review or evidence map, there were sufficient studies to justify a review, and the review would not merely replicate an existing review but make a novel contribution to the evidence base.
The project describes a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis topics using scoping reviews, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.
The work demonstrates an approach to establishing and evaluating evidence synthesis gaps. It has been repeatedly noted that research gap analyses often lack transparency with little information on analytic criteria and selection processes. 24 , 25 In addition, research need identification may not be informed by systematic literature searches documenting gaps but primarily rely on often unstructured content expert input. 26 , 27 Evidence synthesis needs assessment is a new field that to date has received very little attention. However, as health care delivery organizations move towards providing evidence-based treatments and the existing research continue to grow, both evidence reviews and evidence review gap identification and prioritization will become more prominent.
One of the lessons learned is that the topic selection process added to the timeline and required additional resources. The scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis topics, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans each added time and the project required a longer period of performance compared to previous evidence synthesis projects. The project components were undertaken sequentially and had to be divided into topic areas. For example, it was deemed too much to ask for stakeholder input for all 122 topics identified as potential evidence review topics. Furthermore, we needed to be flexible to be able to respond to unanticipated congressional requests for evidence reviews. However, our process of identifying synthesis gaps, checking whether topics can be translated into syntheses, obtaining stakeholder input to ensure that the gaps are meaningful and need filling, and estimating the feasibility and avoiding duplicative efforts, has merit considering the alternative. More targeted funding of evidence syntheses ensures relevance and while resources need to be spent on the steps we are describing, these are small investments compared to the resources required for a full systematic review or evidence map.
The documented stakeholder engagement approach was useful for many reasons, not just for ensuring that the selection of evidence synthesis topics was transparent and structured. The stakeholders were alerted to the evidence synthesis project and provided input for further topic refinement. This process also supported the identification of a ‘customer’ after the review was completed, that is, a stakeholder who is keen on using the evidence review is likely to take action on its results and ready to translate the findings into clinical practice. The research to practice gap is substantial and the challenges of translating research to practice are widely documented. 28 – 30 Inefficient research translation delays delivery of proven clinical practices and can lead to wasteful research and practice investments.
The project had several strengths and limitations. The project describes a successful, transparent, and structured process to engage stakeholders and identifies important and feasible evidence review topics. However, the approach was developed to address the specific military psychological health care system needs, and therefore the process may not be generalizable to all other health care delivery organizations. Source selection was tailored to psychological health synthesis needs and process modifications (ie, sources to identify gaps) are needed for organizations aiming to establish a similar procedure. To keep the approach manageable, feasibility scans used only 1 database and we developed only preliminary, not comprehensive searches. Hence, some uncertainty about the true evidence base for the different topics remained; feasibility scans can only estimate the available research. Furthermore, the selected stakeholders were limited to a small number of service leads. A broader panel of stakeholders would have likely provided additional input. In addition, all evaluations of the literature relied on the expertise of experienced systematic reviewers; any replication of the process will require some staff with expertise in the evidence review. Finally, as outlined, all described processes added to the project timeline compounding the challenges of providing timely systematic reviews for practitioners and policymakers. 31 , 32
We have described a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize areas of evidence synthesis for a health care system. Scoping searches and feasibility scans identified gaps in the literature that would benefit from evidence review. Stakeholder input helped ensure the relevance of review topics and created a receptive audience for targeted evidence synthesis. The approach aims to advance the field of evidence synthesis needs assessment.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments.
The authors thank Laura Raaen, Margaret Maglione, Gulrez Azhar, Margie Danz, and Thomas Concannon for content input and Aneesa Motala and Naemma Golshan for administrative assistance.
Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Psychological Health Center of Excellence. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Psychological Health Center of Excellence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the United States government.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- [email protected]
- Phone Number 844.684.0456 (Hours)
- Shapiro Library
- SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ: What is a research gap and how do I find one?
- 42 Access/Remote Access
- 6 Accessibility
- 11 Building/Facilities
- 8 Career/Job Information
- 30 Catalog/Print Books
- 33 Circulation
- 118 Citing Sources
- 20 Copyright/Plagiarism
- 333 Databases
- 26 Directions/Location
- 11 Faculty Resources/Needs
- 23 Global Campus Specific
- 12 Hours/Contacts
- 19 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
- 23 Interlibrary Loan
- 63 IT/Computer/Printing Support
- 3 Library Instruction
- 1 Mobile Services
- 11 Multimedia
- 23 Periodicals
- 22 Policies
- 2 RefWorks/Citation Managers
- 8 Research Guides (LibGuides)
- 203 Research Help
- 4 Social Media
- 24 University Services
- 3 Workshops/Events
- 60 Writing & Presentation Help
Answered By: Elyse (she/hers/her) Last Updated: Sep 17, 2021 Views: 332678
What is a research gap.
A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Sometimes, a research gap exists when there is a concept or new idea that hasn't been studied at all. Sometimes you'll find a research gap if all the existing research is outdated and in need of new/updated research (studies on Internet use in 2001, for example). Or, perhaps a specific population has not been well studied (perhaps there are plenty of studies on teenagers and video games, but not enough studies on toddlers and video games, for example). These are just a few examples, but any research gap you find is an area where more studies and more research need to be conducted. Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?
How do I find one?
It will take a lot of research and reading. You'll need to be very familiar with all the studies that have already been done, and what those studies contributed to the overall body of knowledge about that topic. Make a list of any questions you have about your topic and then do some research to see if those questions have already been answered satisfactorily. If they haven't, perhaps you've discovered a gap! Here are some strategies you can use to make the most of your time:
- One useful trick is to look at the “suggestions for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies on your topic. Many times, the authors will identify areas where they think a research gap exists, and what studies they think need to be done in the future.
- As you are researching, you will most likely come across citations for seminal works in your research field. These are the research studies that you see mentioned again and again in the literature. In addition to finding those and reading them, you can use a database like Web of Science to follow the research trail and discover all the other articles that have cited these. See the FAQ: I found the perfect article for my paper. How do I find other articles and books that have cited it? on how to do this. One way to quickly track down these seminal works is to use a database like SAGE Navigator, a social sciences literature review tool. It is one of the products available via our SAGE Knowledge database.
- In the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES databases, you can select literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodology section in the advanced search to quickly locate these. See the FAQ: Where can I find a qualitative or quantitative study? for more information on how to find the Methodology section in these two databases.
- In CINAHL , you can select Systematic review under the Publication Type field in the advanced search.
- In Web of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the “Refine Results” sidebar to the right of the list of search hits.
- If the database you are searching does not offer a way to filter your results by document type, publication type, or methodology in the advanced search, you can include these phrases (“literature reviews,” meta-analyses, or “systematic reviews”) in your search string. For example, “video games” AND “literature reviews” could be a possible search that you could try.
Please give these suggestions a try and contact a librarian for additional assistance.
Content authored by: GS
- Share on Facebook
Was this helpful? Yes 272 No 133
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions.
Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.
Tell Me More
Link to Question Form
Submit a Question
Related FAQs
UNE Library Services
Research Help
Gaps in the literature.
Gaps in the Literature are missing pieces or insufficient information in the research literature. These are areas that have scope for further research because they are unexplored, under-explored, or outdated.
Gaps could be:
- population or sample: size, type, location etc…
- research methods: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed
- data collection or analysis
- research variables or conditions
Finding Gaps
Search research databases such as Scopus , ProQuest Central , and PubMed (MEDLINE) . Find recommended databases for your subject area in the Research by Subject guide for your course or program. Conduct an extensive literature search to find a broad range of research articles on a topic.
Identifying Gaps
If you do not find articles in your literature search, this may indicate a gap.
If you do find articles, the goal is to find a gap for contributing new research. Authors signal that there is a gap using words such as:
- has not been clarified, studied, reported, or elucidated
- further research is required or needed
- is not well reported
- suggestions for further research
- key question is or remains
- it is important to address
- poorly understood or known
- lack of studies.
See example abstracts in CSE format highlighting places in the text where gaps in the literature are indicated.
Identifying Research Gaps YouTube video from UCLA Library
Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation
Questions & Help
If you have questions on this, or another, topic, contact a librarian for help!
Download or print a PDF version of this page
Military Health System
- Visit MHS on Instagram
- Visit MHS on LinkedIn
- Visit MHS on Facebook
- Visit MHS on Twitter
- Visit MHS on YouTube
- Visit MHS on GovDelivery
- Military Health Topics
- Centers of Excellence
- Psychological Health Center of Excellence
- PHCoE Research and Analytics
- Psychological Health Research Gaps
Sidebar Navigation
- Consortium for Health and Military Performance
- Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence
- Hearing Center of Excellence
- The National Intrepid Center of Excellence
- Clinician's Corner Blog
- Keep in Touch with PHCoE
- Psych Health Evidence Briefs
- Rapid Reviews
- Systematic Reviews
- Practice-Based Implementation (PBI) Network
- Health Services & Population Research
- Psychological Health by the Numbers
- PHCoE Clinician Resources
- Primary Care Behavioral Health
- Psychological Health Readiness
- Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER)
- inTransition
- Psychological Health Resource Center | 24/7
- Real Warriors Campaign
- Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence
- Vision Center of Excellence
PHCoE employs a systematic process for identifying and prioritizing psychological health research gaps in the Military Health System (MHS). This process is conducted and refined regularly to produce research recommendations reports for selected topic areas. The goal of this effort is to inform and prioritize research funding and increase the likelihood that comprehensive research portfolios will target areas of greatest need and potential for impact.
Periodically, a broadly defined topic area of importance to psychological health care in the MHS is identified for gaps analysis.
Based on this topic, our team of subject matter experts (SMEs) synthesizes information from a variety of sources to identify subtopic areas and a preliminary list of potential research gaps most relevant to the military.
Next, recent and in-progress studies are mapped to the potential gaps to determine the degree to which each gap may be addressed by recently funded or completed research. This produces a refined list of gaps, which are unlikely to be closed by current efforts.
Our team of SMEs then uses a set of standard criteria and metrics to prioritize the remaining, refined research gaps based on the need and potential for impact in the MHS.
The results are disseminated to key stakeholder groups in a final report, which details the precise methodology and prioritized research gaps.
You also may be interested in...
- Publications (4)
2016 Research Recommendations Report for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression in the Military
This report from the Psychological Health Center of Excellence collates and prioritizes identified research gaps in PTSD and depression in the military using a set of standard criteria and metrics.
Recommended Content:
2020 Prioritized Research Gaps Report for Suicide Prevention Topics
Report from the Psychological Health Center of Excellence which employed a systematic methodology to identify and prioritize research gaps within the domain of suicide prevention
2018 Prioritized Research Gaps Report for Adjustment Disorders
This report describes the Psychological Health Center of Excellence research gap prioritization effort on the topic of adjustment disorders to provide DoD stakeholders with pertinent information to help prioritize future research investments.
2017 Prioritized Research Gaps Report for Selected Substance Use Disorder Topics
This report from the Psychological Health Center of Excellence utilized a rigorous methodology to generate a prioritized list of research gaps related to substance use disorder.
Research Recommendations Reports
The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein. Although the Defense Health Agency may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website.
Don't know where to start? 6 Tips on identifying research gaps
Statement of the Problem
Fatima Qureshi
The first step of conducting a study is identifying a previously unexplored area of research. Choosing an untapped area in your research field will improve your chances of getting published. But the big question is: how to decide which research problem should you study? Some researchers have clear ideas about the research problem they want to pursue. However, researchers, particularly those who are at an early stage of their career, find themselves in a fix when they have to zero down on a research topic that is original and innovative. The best way to do this is to identify a gap in existing research in the field, i.e., finding a research gap!
This article presents some tips to help you identify a knowledge gap or an unexplored area on which you can base your research.
What is a research gap?
Let us begin with understanding what a research gap means. When you read papers or books on topics of your interest, you may realize there are some areas that have significant scope for more research but they have not been tapped by other researchers. In other words, no one has picked up or worked on these ideas. A research gap or a literature gap refers to such unexplored or underexplored areas that have scope for further research.
Why is it important to identify a unique research gap?
Assume that you have completed your research work and published the findings only to find out that another researcher has already published something similar. How devastating would that be! Therefore, it is necessary to find out those problems in your research field which have not been addressed before. Not only would you be investing your funds and resources in the right project but also increasing the chances of your research findings getting published.
Challenges you may face while identifying research gaps
Finding gaps and coming up with original and innovative topics can be tricky for more than one reason. Here’s a list of challenges that you might face while identifying research gaps in your chosen area of study:
1. Effort of dealing with an enormous amount of information: There could be a lot of unanswered questions in an area of your interest. So you might get overwhelmed with the number of research gaps you stumble upon and feel confused about which one you should focus on.
2. Difficulty of searching in an organized manner: Some researchers may find it difficult to organize the information they have gathered. One can easily lose ideas if they are not noted properly.
3. Hesitation in questioning established norms: Some researchers are not confident enough to challenge the existing knowledge in their field and may hesitate to question what others have claimed in their work.
How to identify gaps in literature
You may wonder what would be the best way to come up with some innovative research questions. Though there is no well-defined process to find a gap in existing knowledge, your curiosity, creativity, imagination, and judgment can help you identify it.
Here are 6 tips to identify research gaps:
1. Look for inspiration in published literature
- What is the significance of this research to my work or the broader field?
- How can this article help me formulate my research questions?
- Does the author’s argument require more clarification?
- What issues or questions has the author not addressed?
- Is there a different perspective that I can consider?
- What other factors could have influenced the results?
- Are the methods or procedures used outdated or no longer considered valid in your field? Is there scope for you to test the findings using more a current approach?
- While reading research articles, you can focus on the Introduction section where the authors explain the importance of their research topic and the gaps they have identified and attempted to fill through their research. Also, look at the directions or suggestions for further research that the authors have made as that could be highly inspiring.
- Read meta-analyses and review papers to learn more about the developments and trends in research over the years in the area of your liking. This will help you get acquainted with the problems that have been researched upon in the past as well as trending queries on those topics that you find interesting.
2. Seek help from your research advisor
Discuss the issues and problems in your field with your research advisor to generate ideas for research. Articulating your ideas and knowing what others think and are working on may help you identify your study area or even identify mistakes in your approach. If you think a question would be interesting to work on, you can discuss it with your advisor and get their suggestions.
3. Use digital tools to seek out popular topics or most cited research papers
To familiarize yourself with the trending queries in your field, you can use digital tools as they can save time and help you cast a wider net in your search for a research gap. Websites like Essential Science Indicator that identify the most cited papers in a field along with the emerging branches, influential contributors, publications, and countries in that field can be immensely useful to know which topics are considered important. You can also use Google Trends to learn more about the popular questions related to your research area. This will ease your search for an untapped area in your research field.
4. Check the websites of influential journals
The websites of prominent journals often have a section called ‘key concepts’ where experts in an area highlight the central ideas in that field. Reading through this section can help you gain a lot of insights and generate new ideas as well. Moreover, you should also look through the reference section of these papers as it can lead you to important resources on the topic.
5. Make a note of your queries
It is a good practice to note all the questions that cross your mind while reading any published literature. If possible, you should map the question to the resource it is based on. " Keep track of what the authors told you and the questions that occur to you whenever you read anything - an article, a book, a book chapter, a dissertation, etc. " advises Nadine Anderson, Behavioral Sciences and Women's and Gender Studies Librarian at the University of Michigan. She says that this will also help in ensuring that there is no unintended plagiarism in your research paper. You can use tables, charts, pictures, or tools to maintain a record. This can help you in the long run when you are developing your idea into a research problem or even when writing your manuscript.
6. Research each question
Once you have a list of questions that could be explored, you must conduct thorough research on them. What does this mean? Read more about each doubt or query that you have. Find out if other researchers have had similar questions and whether they have found answers to them. This will help you avoid duplication of work.
Your research project is something that you will invest a lot of time in, so make sure it is something that arouses your interest and passion. While you finalize an unprecedented research idea, make sure you consider the time frame available to complete the project as well as other important aspects such as the availability of funds, equipment, and infrastructure. An over-ambitious project may be difficult to accomplish due to time and resources restraints, while research that makes an insufficient contribution may fail to get the approval of your funding committee or the journal’s editorial board.
Since there is no specific method to pick out exceptional or interesting research problems, you can use the tips presented in this article and figure out what works for you. Keep reading and asking questions until you find the extraordinary problem you’ve been looking for!
Good luck with your research!
Related reading:
- How to choose a research question
- Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publication
- How to write the literature review of your research paper
- Tips for effective literature searching and keeping up with new publications
References:
Steps for identifying research gaps in the literature
Ph.D. Thesis Research: Where do I Start?
6 (very useful!) Approaches to identify research gaps and generate research questions
for this article
Published on: Feb 25, 2019
- Problem Statement
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
One click sign-in with your social accounts
Sign up via email
1536 visitors saw this today and 1210 signed up.
Subscribe to Conducting Research
Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.
Related Reading
The basics of writing a statement of the problem for your research…
7 Biases to avoid in qualitative research
Types of qualitative research methods
Don't know where to start? 6 Tips on identifying research gaps 8 min read
Evaluating research methodology, studying the literature, and innovating - Tips from an expert 10 min read
5 Tips to write a great literature review 9 min read
Guidelines for young researchers on tackling common problems in scientific publishing 15 min read
11 Commonly confused elements of a research paper 16 min read
Trending Searches
- Statement of the problem
- Background of study
- Scope of the study
- Types of qualitative research
- Rationale of the study
- Concept paper
- Literature review
- Introduction in research
- Under "Editor Evaluation"
- Ethics in research
Recent Searches
- Review paper
- Responding to reviewer comments
- Predatory publishers
- Scope and delimitations
- Open access
- Plagiarism in research
- Journal selection tips
- Editor assigned
- Types of articles
- "Reject and Resubmit" status
- Decision in process
- Conflict of interest
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The development gap is a term used for defining the differences between the most and least advanced countries. It is another way of referring to nations that enjoy first, second and third world statuses. It defines how far apart countries a...
A performance gap is the measurement of the difference between the present status in a business operation and its ultimate goal of performance.
The generation gap is the perceived gap of cultural differences between one generation and the other. The reason for the gap can largely be attributed to rapidly changing ideals and societal norms.
Steps for identifying research gaps in the literature ... Your Master's thesis should make a significant, novel contribution to the field. Your
We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain
The authors identified gaps in the literature in the course of preparing 10 evidence-based.
The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is
The research gap can be found by doing a literature review. Author X says this; Author Y says that. Author Z says this. As you review the literature and get to
A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and
Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?
Gaps in the Literature are missing pieces or insufficient information in the research literature. These are areas that have scope for further research because
PHCoE employs a systematic process for identifying and prioritizing psychological health research gaps in the Military Health System (MHS).
This article provides tips on how to find a knowledge gap. ... A research gap or a literature gap refers to such unexplored or underexplored
is to evaluate a body of literature; i.e., to “identify relations, contradictions, gaps