research conclusion and recommendation example

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

The conclusion of a research paper is a crucial section that plays a significant role in the overall impact and effectiveness of your research paper. However, this is also the section that typically receives less attention compared to the introduction and the body of the paper. The conclusion serves to provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, their implications, and a sense of closure to the study. Discussing how can the findings be applied in real-world scenarios or inform policy, practice, or decision-making is especially valuable to practitioners and policymakers. The research paper conclusion also provides researchers with clear insights and valuable information for their own work, which they can then build on and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The research paper conclusion should explain the significance of your findings within the broader context of your field. It restates how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge and whether they confirm or challenge existing theories or hypotheses. Also, by identifying unanswered questions or areas requiring further investigation, your awareness of the broader research landscape can be demonstrated.

Remember to tailor the research paper conclusion to the specific needs and interests of your intended audience, which may include researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or a combination of these.

Table of Contents

What is a conclusion in a research paper, summarizing conclusion, editorial conclusion, externalizing conclusion, importance of a good research paper conclusion, how to write a conclusion for your research paper, research paper conclusion examples.

• How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

A conclusion in a research paper is the final section where you summarize and wrap up your research, presenting the key findings and insights derived from your study. The research paper conclusion is not the place to introduce new information or data that was not discussed in the main body of the paper. When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1

• Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem.
• Recommend specific course(s) of action.
• Restate key ideas to drive home the ultimate point of your research paper.
• Provide a “take-home” message that you want the readers to remember about your study.

Types of conclusions for research papers

In research papers, the conclusion provides closure to the reader. The type of research paper conclusion you choose depends on the nature of your study, your goals, and your target audience. I provide you with three common types of conclusions:

A summarizing conclusion is the most common type of conclusion in research papers. It involves summarizing the main points, reiterating the research question, and restating the significance of the findings. This common type of research paper conclusion is used across different disciplines.

An editorial conclusion is less common but can be used in research papers that are focused on proposing or advocating for a particular viewpoint or policy. It involves presenting a strong editorial or opinion based on the research findings and offering recommendations or calls to action.

An externalizing conclusion is a type of conclusion that extends the research beyond the scope of the paper by suggesting potential future research directions or discussing the broader implications of the findings. This type of conclusion is often used in more theoretical or exploratory research papers.

Align your conclusion’s tone with the rest of your research paper. Start Writing with Paperpal Now!  

The conclusion in a research paper serves several important purposes:

• Offers Implications and Recommendations : Your research paper conclusion is an excellent place to discuss the broader implications of your research and suggest potential areas for further study. It’s also an opportunity to offer practical recommendations based on your findings.
• Provides Closure : A good research paper conclusion provides a sense of closure to your paper. It should leave the reader with a feeling that they have reached the end of a well-structured and thought-provoking research project.
• Leaves a Lasting Impression : Writing a well-crafted research paper conclusion leaves a lasting impression on your readers. It’s your final opportunity to leave them with a new idea, a call to action, or a memorable quote.

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper is essential to leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you create and know what to put in the conclusion of a research paper: 2

• Research Statement : Begin your research paper conclusion by restating your research statement. This reminds the reader of the main point you’ve been trying to prove throughout your paper. Keep it concise and clear.
• Key Points : Summarize the main arguments and key points you’ve made in your paper. Avoid introducing new information in the research paper conclusion. Instead, provide a concise overview of what you’ve discussed in the body of your paper.
• Address the Research Questions : If your research paper is based on specific research questions or hypotheses, briefly address whether you’ve answered them or achieved your research goals. Discuss the significance of your findings in this context.
• Significance : Highlight the importance of your research and its relevance in the broader context. Explain why your findings matter and how they contribute to the existing knowledge in your field.
• Implications : Explore the practical or theoretical implications of your research. How might your findings impact future research, policy, or real-world applications? Consider the “so what?” question.
• Future Research : Offer suggestions for future research in your area. What questions or aspects remain unanswered or warrant further investigation? This shows that your work opens the door for future exploration.
• Closing Thought : Conclude your research paper conclusion with a thought-provoking or memorable statement. This can leave a lasting impression on your readers and wrap up your paper effectively. Avoid introducing new information or arguments here.
• Proofread and Revise : Carefully proofread your conclusion for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Ensure that your ideas flow smoothly and that your conclusion is coherent and well-structured.

Write your research paper conclusion 2x faster with Paperpal. Try it now!

Remember that a well-crafted research paper conclusion is a reflection of the strength of your research and your ability to communicate its significance effectively. It should leave a lasting impression on your readers and tie together all the threads of your paper. Now you know how to start the conclusion of a research paper and what elements to include to make it impactful, let’s look at a research paper conclusion sample.

How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal?

A research paper conclusion is not just a summary of your study, but a synthesis of the key findings that ties the research together and places it in a broader context. A research paper conclusion should be concise, typically around one paragraph in length. However, some complex topics may require a longer conclusion to ensure the reader is left with a clear understanding of the study’s significance. Paperpal, an AI writing assistant trusted by over 800,000 academics globally, can help you write a well-structured conclusion for your research paper. 

• Sign Up or Log In: Create a new Paperpal account or login with your details.  
• Navigate to Features : Once logged in, head over to the features’ side navigation pane. Click on Templates and you’ll find a suite of generative AI features to help you write better, faster.  
• Generate an outline: Under Templates, select ‘Outlines’. Choose ‘Research article’ as your document type.  
• Select your section: Since you’re focusing on the conclusion, select this section when prompted.  
• Choose your field of study: Identifying your field of study allows Paperpal to provide more targeted suggestions, ensuring the relevance of your conclusion to your specific area of research. 
• Provide a brief description of your study: Enter details about your research topic and findings. This information helps Paperpal generate a tailored outline that aligns with your paper’s content. 
• Generate the conclusion outline: After entering all necessary details, click on ‘generate’. Paperpal will then create a structured outline for your conclusion, to help you start writing and build upon the outline.  
• Write your conclusion: Use the generated outline to build your conclusion. The outline serves as a guide, ensuring you cover all critical aspects of a strong conclusion, from summarizing key findings to highlighting the research’s implications. 
• Refine and enhance: Paperpal’s ‘Make Academic’ feature can be particularly useful in the final stages. Select any paragraph of your conclusion and use this feature to elevate the academic tone, ensuring your writing is aligned to the academic journal standards. 

By following these steps, Paperpal not only simplifies the process of writing a research paper conclusion but also ensures it is impactful, concise, and aligned with academic standards. Sign up with Paperpal today and write your research paper conclusion 2x faster .  

The research paper conclusion is a crucial part of your paper as it provides the final opportunity to leave a strong impression on your readers. In the research paper conclusion, summarize the main points of your research paper by restating your research statement, highlighting the most important findings, addressing the research questions or objectives, explaining the broader context of the study, discussing the significance of your findings, providing recommendations if applicable, and emphasizing the takeaway message. The main purpose of the conclusion is to remind the reader of the main point or argument of your paper and to provide a clear and concise summary of the key findings and their implications. All these elements should feature on your list of what to put in the conclusion of a research paper to create a strong final statement for your work.

A strong conclusion is a critical component of a research paper, as it provides an opportunity to wrap up your arguments, reiterate your main points, and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here are the key elements of a strong research paper conclusion: 1. Conciseness : A research paper conclusion should be concise and to the point. It should not introduce new information or ideas that were not discussed in the body of the paper. 2. Summarization : The research paper conclusion should be comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear understanding of the research’s main contributions. 3 . Relevance : Ensure that the information included in the research paper conclusion is directly relevant to the research paper’s main topic and objectives; avoid unnecessary details. 4 . Connection to the Introduction : A well-structured research paper conclusion often revisits the key points made in the introduction and shows how the research has addressed the initial questions or objectives. 5. Emphasis : Highlight the significance and implications of your research. Why is your study important? What are the broader implications or applications of your findings? 6 . Call to Action : Include a call to action or a recommendation for future research or action based on your findings.

The length of a research paper conclusion can vary depending on several factors, including the overall length of the paper, the complexity of the research, and the specific journal requirements. While there is no strict rule for the length of a conclusion, but it’s generally advisable to keep it relatively short. A typical research paper conclusion might be around 5-10% of the paper’s total length. For example, if your paper is 10 pages long, the conclusion might be roughly half a page to one page in length.

In general, you do not need to include citations in the research paper conclusion. Citations are typically reserved for the body of the paper to support your arguments and provide evidence for your claims. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule: 1. If you are drawing a direct quote or paraphrasing a specific source in your research paper conclusion, you should include a citation to give proper credit to the original author. 2. If your conclusion refers to or discusses specific research, data, or sources that are crucial to the overall argument, citations can be included to reinforce your conclusion’s validity.

The conclusion of a research paper serves several important purposes: 1. Summarize the Key Points 2. Reinforce the Main Argument 3. Provide Closure 4. Offer Insights or Implications 5. Engage the Reader. 6. Reflect on Limitations

Remember that the primary purpose of the research paper conclusion is to leave a lasting impression on the reader, reinforcing the key points and providing closure to your research. It’s often the last part of the paper that the reader will see, so it should be strong and well-crafted.

• Makar, G., Foltz, C., Lendner, M., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2018). How to write effective discussion and conclusion sections. Clinical spine surgery, 31(8), 345-346.
• Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters.  Journal of English for academic purposes ,  4 (3), 207-224.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process

• Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: Answering Top Author Queries

Preflight For Editorial Desk: The Perfect Hybrid (AI + Human) Assistance Against Compromised Manuscripts

You may also like, how to write a case study in research..., online ai writing tools: cost-efficient help for dissertation..., how to cite in apa format (7th edition):..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

Writing Effective Conclusions and Recommendations in a Thesis

Have you ever experienced the triumphant moment of finishing a jigsaw puzzle , only to find that the final piece doesn’t quite fit? Such is the challenge when writing the conclusion and recommendations in your thesis . This final section isn’t just an endnote; it’s your opportunity to make your research resonate. Let’s explore how to craft a compelling conclusion that not only summarizes your findings but also sets the stage for future inquiry.

Table of Contents

• Understanding the weight of conclusions and recommendations
• The art of summarizing findings
• Drawing insightful conclusions
• Outlining clear and actionable recommendations
• Linking conclusions to research objectives
• Reflecting on research questions
• Emphasizing the impact of your findings
• Formulating recommendations with purpose
• Grounding recommendations in evidence
• Keeping recommendations achievable
• Setting the stage for future research
• Writing with clarity and conviction
• Using precise language
• Ensuring cohesiveness
• Engaging the reader’s imagination

Understanding the weight of conclusions and recommendations 🔗

In the grand scheme of your thesis, the conclusion is your final act, your closing argument. It is here that you revisit your research objectives to demonstrate how your findings address them. But it’s not just a rehash of your research; it’s your chance to interpret the implications of your work and persuade your audience of its significance.

The art of summarizing findings 🔗

Begin by revisiting the questions you posed at the start of your journey. Summarize the answers you’ve uncovered, concisely distilling the essence of your research. This isn’t a place for exhaustive detail—that’s what the body of your thesis is for. Instead, think of it as the highlight reel, showcasing the most significant insights.

Drawing insightful conclusions 🔗

Conclusions are the thoughtful deductions you’ve drawn from your research. Linking back to your objectives, ask yourself: What have I learned? How have my findings contributed to the field? This is where you can shine a light on the larger implications of your work, the ‘so what?’ of your thesis.

Outlining clear and actionable recommendations 🔗

Your recommendations are your legacy, the path you lay for future research ers or practitioners. They should be clear, specific, and grounded in your findings. Think of them as a call to action—what should be done in light of your research? Whether it’s suggesting areas for further study or recommending changes to practice, your recommendations should inspire action.

Linking conclusions to research objectives 🔗

To ensure your conclusions are meaningful, they must be tethered to your research objectives. This alignment reinforces the relevance of your work and ensures you’re answering the questions you set out to explore.

Reflecting on research questions 🔗

Revisit your research questions or hypotheses . How have your findings addressed them? This reflection ensures your conclusions are directly tied to your initial inquiry, creating a cohesive narrative from start to finish.

Emphasizing the impact of your findings 🔗

Highlight the impact of your research. Have you filled a gap in knowledge? Challenged existing theories? Applied your findings to practice? Your conclusions should underscore the value of your work and its ripple effect in your field.

Formulating recommendations with purpose 🔗

Recommendations should never be an afterthought. They are your opportunity to influence the future, to suggest how the knowledge you’ve generated can be used to better understand or improve upon a particular issue.

Grounding recommendations in evidence 🔗

Ensure your recommendations are evidence-based . They should flow naturally from the conclusions you’ve drawn, each one supported by the data you’ve collected.

Keeping recommendations achievable 🔗

Make your recommendations achievable. Pie-in-the-sky ideas might be inspirational, but they’re less helpful than practical, attainable suggestions that can be realistically implemented.

Setting the stage for future research 🔗

Use your recommendations to set the stage for future research. What questions have emerged from your study? Where are the knowledge gaps ? Propel the academic conversation forward by identifying the next steps.

Writing with clarity and conviction 🔗

The best conclusions and recommendations are those written with clarity and conviction. You’ve spent countless hours on your research—now’s the time to confidently present your findings and their implications.

Using precise language 🔗

Be precise in your language. Avoid ambiguity and make every word count. This precision not only makes your writing clearer but also reinforces the authority of your conclusions and recommendations.

Ensuring cohesiveness 🔗

Your conclusion should feel like a natural culmination of your thesis, not a separate entity. Ensure that it flows logically from the body of your work, with each part reinforcing the other.

Engaging the reader’s imagination 🔗

Engage your reader’s imagination by painting a picture of what could be. Use your recommendations to inspire visions of future possibilities, grounded in the solid foundation of your research.

Conclusion 🔗

In conclusion, remember that the final sections of your thesis are not mere formalities but the bridge between your research and its potential impact on the world. The conclusions and recommendations you write are your scholarly legacy , a testament to the hard work you’ve poured into your research. Approach them with the same rigor , creativity, and dedication as the rest of your thesis, and you’ll leave a lasting mark on your field.

What do you think? How do you approach writing conclusions and recommendations, and what strategies do you find most effective? Are there particular challenges you’ve faced in this part of the thesis-writing process?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Research Methodology

1 Introduction to Research in General

• Research in General
• Research Circle
• Tools of Research
• Methods: Quantitative or Qualitative
• The Product: Research Report or Papers

2 Original Unity of Philosophy and Science

• Myth Philosophy and Science: Original Unity
• The Myth: A Spiritual Metaphor
• Myth Philosophy and Science
• The Greek Quest for Unity
• The Ionian School
• Towards a Grand Unification Theory or Theory of Everything
• Einstein’s Perennial Quest for Unity

3 Evolution of the Distinct Methods of Science

• Definition of Scientific Method
• The Evolution of Scientific Methods
• Theory-Dependence of Observation
• Scope of Science and Scientific Methods
• Prevalent Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

4 Relation of Scientific and Philosophical Methods

• Definitions of Scientific and Philosophical method
• Philosophical method
• Scientific method
• The relation
• The Importance of Philosophical and scientific methods

5 Dialectical Method

• Introduction and a Brief Survey of the Method
• Types of Dialectics
• Dialectics in Classical Philosophy
• Dialectics in Modern Philosophy
• Critique of Dialectical Method

6 Rational Method

• Understanding Rationalism
• Rational Method of Investigation
• Descartes’ Rational Method
• Leibniz’ Aim of Philosophy
• Spinoza’ Aim of Philosophy

7 Empirical Method

• Common Features of Philosophical Method
• Empirical Method
• Exposition of Empiricism
• Locke’s Empirical Method
• Berkeley’s Empirical Method
• David Hume’s Empirical Method

8 Critical Method

• Basic Features of Critical Theory
• On Instrumental Reason
• Conception of Society
• Human History as Dialectic of Enlightenment
• Substantive Reason
• Habermasian Critical Theory
• Habermas’ Theory of Society
• Habermas’ Critique of Scientism
• Theory of Communicative Action
• Discourse Ethics of Habermas

9 Phenomenological Method (Western and Indian)

• Phenomenology in Philosophy
• Phenomenology as a Method
• Phenomenological Analysis of Knowledge
• Phenomenological Reduction
• Husserl’s Triad: Ego Cogito Cogitata
• Intentionality
• Understanding ‘Consciousness’
• Phenomenological Method in Indian Tradition
• Phenomenological Method in Religion

10 Analytical Method (Western and Indian)

• Analysis in History of Philosophy
• Conceptual Analysis
• Analysis as a Method
• Analysis in Logical Atomism and Logical Positivism
• Analytic Method in Ethics
• Language Analysis
• Quine’s Analytical Method
• Analysis in Indian Traditions

11 Hermeneutical Method (Western and Indian)

• The Power (Sakti) to Convey Meaning
• Three Meanings
• Pre-understanding
• The Semantic Autonomy of the Text
• Towards a Fusion of Horizons
• The Hermeneutical Circle
• The True Scandal of the Text
• Literary Forms

12 Deconstructive Method

• The Seminal Idea of Deconstruction in Heidegger
• Deconstruction in Derrida
• Structuralism and Post-structuralism
• Sign Signifier and Signified
• Writing and Trace
• Deconstruction as a Strategic Reading
• The Logic of Supplement
• No Outside-text

13 Method of Bibliography

• Preparing to Write
• Writing a Paper
• The Main Divisions of a Paper
• Writing Bibliography in Turabian and APA
• Sample Bibliography

14 Method of Footnotes

• Citations and Notes
• General Hints for Footnotes
• Writing Footnotes
• Examples of Footnote or Endnote
• Example of a Research Article

15 Method of Notes Taking

• Methods of Note-taking
• Note Book Style
• Note taking in a Computer
• Types of Note-taking
• Notes from Field Research
• Errors to be Avoided

16 Method of Thesis Proposal and Presentation

• Preliminary Section
• Presenting the Problem of the Thesis
• Design of the Study
• Main Body of the Thesis
• Conclusion Summary and Recommendations
• Reference Material

Share on Mastodon

How to write a research conclusion and recommendations?

28 June 2024

Magda Wojcik

Conclusion and recommendations are the final part of the research paper, which synthesises the research, highlights its significance and provides a roadmap for future studies and practical applications. A well-crafted conclusion not only summarises the key points of the research but also emphasises its broader implications and suggests potential areas for further exploration. Similarly, research recommendations offer specific, actionable insights that can guide future research, inform policy decisions and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

This blog post provides a comprehensive overview of how to effectively write conclusions and recommendations, detailing their purposes, components and examples across various disciplines. Additionally, it offers resources and tools to assist researchers in crafting clear, impactful final sections of their papers, ensuring they are well-prepared for publication.

What is a research conclusion?

What are research recommendations, example 1: conclusion and recommendations in business, example 2: conclusion and recommendations in literary history, example 3: conclusion and recommendations in environmental science, resources for writing research conclusions and recommendations, how to prepare research papers for publication.

A research conclusion is the final section of a research paper where the author wraps up the study and presents the key findings. It synthesises the main points discussed in the paper, highlights the significance of the research and suggests potential implications or applications. The conclusion leaves a lasting impression on the reader. It often includes recommendations for future research or practical applications of the study’s findings.

Purpose of a research conclusion

• Summarisation : To provide a concise summary of the main findings and arguments presented in the paper.
• Synthesis : To synthesise the information, showing how it contributes to the overall understanding of the topic.
• Implications : To highlight the significance of the research findings and their broader implications.
• Future research : To suggest areas for further investigation or unanswered questions.
• Closure : To provide a sense of closure to the reader, ensuring the research paper feels complete and comprehensive.

Components of a research conclusion

• Restatement of the thesis : Begin by restating the thesis or main research question, reflecting the insights gained from the study.
• Summary of main points : Summarise the key findings and arguments made in the paper. This should be concise and focused, highlighting the most critical aspects.
• Implications of the findings : Discuss the broader implications of the research findings. This might include their significance for the field, practical applications, policy implications or theoretical advancements.
• Limitations of the study : Acknowledge any limitations encountered during the research. This demonstrates a critical and reflective approach to the research process.
• Recommendations for future research : Suggest areas where further research is needed. This could involve new questions that arose from the study or unexplored aspects of the topic.
• Final thoughts : End with a strong closing statement. This could be a thought-provoking quote, a call to action or a reflection on the importance of the topic.

Research recommendations are a section of a research paper where the author suggests specific actions, areas for further study or changes in practice based on the findings of the research. These recommendations are intended to guide future research, inform policymakers, practitioners or other stakeholders and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Purpose of research recommendations

• Guidance for future research : To provide a roadmap for future studies that can build on the current research or explore new aspects of the topic.
• Practical applications : To suggest practical changes or actions that can be implemented based on the research findings.
• Policy implications : To inform policy decisions or suggest policy changes.
• Contribution to knowledge : To highlight potential areas where further investigation can contribute to the broader understanding of the subject matter.

Components of research recommendations

• Specificity : Clearly state specific actions or studies that should be undertaken.
• Justification : Provide a rationale for why these recommendations are important and how they are supported by the research findings.
• Feasibility : Discuss the feasibility of the recommendations, considering available resources, time and potential challenges.
• Impact : Highlight the potential impact of implementing these recommendations on the field, practice or policy.
• Prioritisation : If multiple recommendations are provided, prioritise them based on their importance or urgency.

In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on consumer loyalty in the retail sector. The data collected from a sample of 500 consumers across various demographics indicates a significant positive correlation between CSR initiatives and consumer loyalty. Specifically, companies that actively engage in environmental sustainability and community support programs tend to enjoy higher customer retention rates and increased brand loyalty (Smith, 2021; Johnson & Lee, 2020). These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that modern consumers are increasingly valuing ethical business practices (Brown et al., 2019).

Recommendation

Based on these findings, it is recommended that retail companies enhance their CSR strategies to foster greater consumer loyalty. Specifically, businesses should invest in sustainable practices, such as reducing carbon footprints and supporting local communities, as these actions have been shown to positively influence consumer perceptions and loyalty (Green & White, 2022). Furthermore, future research should explore the long-term impacts of CSR on brand loyalty across different retail sectors, considering the potential differences in consumer behaviour and expectations. Implementing these recommendations could lead to a more sustainable and loyal customer base, ultimately driving long-term business success.

In conclusion, this analysis of Gothic literature in the nineteenth century reveals a profound connection between socio-political anxieties and the thematic elements of Gothic fiction. By examining key works such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897), the study demonstrates how these novels reflect contemporary fears related to scientific advancements, immigration, and the destabilisation of traditional social structures (Jones, 2021; Parker, 2019). The recurrence of monstrous figures and dark settings in these texts underscores the period’s cultural anxieties and the writers’ responses to the changing societal landscape (Wilson, 2020).

To further understand the complex relationship between Gothic literature and socio-political contexts, it is recommended that future research should focus on lesser-known Gothic works and their portrayal of contemporary issues. Additionally, interdisciplinary studies that incorporate historical, sociological, and literary analysis could provide deeper insights into how Gothic fiction both shaped and was shaped by the anxieties of its time (Miller & Thompson, 2022). By expanding the scope of research to include a wider range of texts and perspectives, scholars can gain a more nuanced understanding of the Gothic genre’s role in reflecting and influencing nineteenth-century society.

In conclusion, this study provides a detailed examination of the effects of urban green spaces on local air quality in metropolitan areas. The data collected from 20 cities worldwide indicates that urban green spaces significantly reduce levels of airborne pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Specifically, areas with dense vegetation and large parklands showed an average reduction in NO2 and PM10 levels by 20% compared to areas with minimal green cover (Garcia et al., 2021; Zhang & Li, 2020). These findings are in line with previous research demonstrating the role of vegetation in air purification and the mitigation of urban heat islands (Wang et al., 2019).

Based on these findings, it is recommended that urban planners and policymakers prioritise the expansion and maintenance of green spaces in urban areas to improve air quality and public health. This can be achieved through initiatives such as the creation of new parks, green roofs, and green walls, as well as the preservation of existing natural habitats (Smith & Johnson, 2022). Future research should focus on the long-term impacts of different types of vegetation on air quality and the optimal spatial distribution of green spaces for maximum environmental benefits. Implementing these recommendations could lead to healthier urban environments and enhanced quality of life for city residents.

Academic writers and researchers can benefit greatly from a variety of resources and tools when crafting conclusions and recommendations .

• How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing by Paul J. Silvia offers strategies for making writing a regular part of your academic life, including tips for writing conclusions and recommendations.
• The Craft of Research by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb and Joseph M. Williams offers practical advice on every aspect of the research process, including how to effectively write conclusions and recommendations.
• Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded by Joshua Schimel provides insights into writing clear and concise scientific papers, with specific chapters dedicated to crafting conclusions and recommendations.

Online resources

• The Harvard College Writing Center offers resources and advice on writing effective conclusions. Their guides cover how to restate the thesis, summarise key points and articulate the significance of the research.
• Purdue Online Writing Lab provides detailed guides on writing various parts of a research paper, including conclusions and recommendations. It also offers examples and exercises to help improve writing skills.
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center provides tips and strategies for writing conclusions, including how to create a sense of closure and address the broader implications of your research.

Software and tools

• EndNote is a reference management tool that helps organise research and references, making it easier to cite sources accurately.
• Hemingway is a writing assistant that helps improve clarity, readability and style by highlighting complex sentences and common errors. It ensures that conclusions and recommendations are clear and concise.
• Mendeley is another reference management tool that helps manage and share research papers, discover research data and collaborate online. It is useful for organising references used in writing conclusions and recommendations.

Editing services play a crucial role in preparing research papers for publication by ensuring that the content is clear, coherent and professionally presented. Here is how different types of editing services can help specifically with conclusions and recommendations, as well as the overall quality of a research paper:

Developmental editing

Developmental editing focuses on the structure and content of the paper, ensuring logical flow and clarity. In particular, developmental editing can help with conclusions and recommendations. For instance, it improves the structure and clarity of conclusions and recommendations by ensuring they are logically organised and clearly articulated. Moreover, it provides feedback on the content, suggesting improvements or additions to make the conclusions and recommendations more impactful and comprehensive. Finally, developmental editing improves consistency by ensuring that the conclusions and recommendations are consistent with the findings and arguments presented in the body of the paper.

The overall impact of developmental editing enhances the coherence and structure of the entire research paper. In addition, it ensures that all sections of the paper, including the conclusions and recommendations, align well with the research objectives and findings.

Line editing

Line editing focuses on improving the writing style, clarity and readability at the sentence and paragraph level. It improves the clarity and precision of the language used in the conclusions and recommendations, making them more understandable and impactful. Furthermore, it enhances the flow and readability, ensuring that the sections are engaging and easy to follow. Last, line editing adjusts the tone and style to ensure they are appropriate for the intended audience and purpose of the paper.

The impact of line editing lies in enhancing the overall readability and engagement of the research paper and ensuring that the writing is clear, concise and professional.

Copyediting

Copyediting focuses on correcting grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax errors. It ensures that the conclusions and recommendations are free from grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors, enhancing professionalism. In addition, copyediting ensures consistency in terminology, formatting and style throughout the sections.

Overall, it provides a polished and professional final draft and ensures that the paper adheres to the style guide or publication standards.

Translation editing

Translation editing ensures that translated texts are accurate, culturally appropriate and retain the original meaning. First, translation editing ensures that the conclusions and recommendations in translated research papers accurately reflect the original content. Next, this service ensures that the language used is culturally appropriate and understandable to the target audience. Last, translation editing maintains consistency with the original paper’s tone, style and terminology.

All in all, translation editing facilitates the dissemination of research findings to a broader, multilingual audience. Furthermore, it ensures that translated research papers meet the same high standards as the original texts.

Proofreading

Proofreading provides a final check for minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling and formatting. For instance, proofreading catches any remaining errors in the conclusions and recommendations, ensuring they are polished and professional. Moreover, it ensures consistency in formatting and presentation, aligning with publication standards.

In sum, proofreading ensures that the research paper is error-free and ready for submission or publication.

Key takeaways

A research conclusion synthesises the study’s main points, highlights its significance and suggests potential implications or applications. It summarises the findings, underscores the broader implications, acknowledges limitations and recommends future research. Essential components include restating the thesis, summarising key points, discussing implications and limitations and providing a strong closing statement.

Research recommendations propose specific actions, areas for further study or changes in practice based on the findings. They guide future research, suggest practical applications, inform policy decisions and advance knowledge. Effective recommendations are specific, justified, feasible, impactful and prioritised.

I am an editor and indexer working with academic writers, journals and presses. If your academic manuscript needs a second pair of eyes, contact me for a  free sample edit  (and remember to use my  early bird discount ).

I'm a freelance editor and indexer with a PhD in literary history. I work with non-fiction, academic and business texts.

Memberships

Incorporated in England and Wales. Company number: 10809565. Registered office: 124 City Road, London, England, EC1V 2NX

© MWEditing 2023

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

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

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

What makes an effective discussion?

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

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

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

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

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

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

Questions to ask yourself:

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

How to structure a discussion

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

Writing Tips

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

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

Don’t

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

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

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

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

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

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Paper Conclusion

Definition:

A research paper conclusion is the final section of a research paper that summarizes the key findings, significance, and implications of the research. It is the writer’s opportunity to synthesize the information presented in the paper, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future research or actions.

The conclusion should provide a clear and concise summary of the research paper, reiterating the research question or problem, the main results, and the significance of the findings. It should also discuss the limitations of the study and suggest areas for further research.

Parts of Research Paper Conclusion

The parts of a research paper conclusion typically include:

Restatement of the Thesis

The conclusion should begin by restating the thesis statement from the introduction in a different way. This helps to remind the reader of the main argument or purpose of the research.

Summary of Key Findings

The conclusion should summarize the main findings of the research, highlighting the most important results and conclusions. This section should be brief and to the point.

Implications and Significance

In this section, the researcher should explain the implications and significance of the research findings. This may include discussing the potential impact on the field or industry, highlighting new insights or knowledge gained, or pointing out areas for future research.

Limitations and Recommendations

It is important to acknowledge any limitations or weaknesses of the research and to make recommendations for how these could be addressed in future studies. This shows that the researcher is aware of the potential limitations of their work and is committed to improving the quality of research in their field.

Concluding Statement

The conclusion should end with a strong concluding statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader. This could be a call to action, a recommendation for further research, or a final thought on the topic.

How to Write Research Paper Conclusion

Here are some steps you can follow to write an effective research paper conclusion:

• Restate the research problem or question: Begin by restating the research problem or question that you aimed to answer in your research. This will remind the reader of the purpose of your study.
• Summarize the main points: Summarize the key findings and results of your research. This can be done by highlighting the most important aspects of your research and the evidence that supports them.
• Discuss the implications: Discuss the implications of your findings for the research area and any potential applications of your research. You should also mention any limitations of your research that may affect the interpretation of your findings.
• Provide a conclusion : Provide a concise conclusion that summarizes the main points of your paper and emphasizes the significance of your research. This should be a strong and clear statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.
• Offer suggestions for future research: Lastly, offer suggestions for future research that could build on your findings and contribute to further advancements in the field.

Remember that the conclusion should be brief and to the point, while still effectively summarizing the key findings and implications of your research.

Example of Research Paper Conclusion

Here’s an example of a research paper conclusion:

Conclusion :

In conclusion, our study aimed to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health among college students. Our findings suggest that there is a significant association between social media use and increased levels of anxiety and depression among college students. This highlights the need for increased awareness and education about the potential negative effects of social media use on mental health, particularly among college students.

Despite the limitations of our study, such as the small sample size and self-reported data, our findings have important implications for future research and practice. Future studies should aim to replicate our findings in larger, more diverse samples, and investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the association between social media use and mental health. In addition, interventions should be developed to promote healthy social media use among college students, such as mindfulness-based approaches and social media detox programs.

Overall, our study contributes to the growing body of research on the impact of social media on mental health, and highlights the importance of addressing this issue in the context of higher education. By raising awareness and promoting healthy social media use among college students, we can help to reduce the negative impact of social media on mental health and improve the well-being of young adults.

Purpose of Research Paper Conclusion

The purpose of a research paper conclusion is to provide a summary and synthesis of the key findings, significance, and implications of the research presented in the paper. The conclusion serves as the final opportunity for the writer to convey their message and leave a lasting impression on the reader.

The conclusion should restate the research problem or question, summarize the main results of the research, and explain their significance. It should also acknowledge the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research or action.

Overall, the purpose of the conclusion is to provide a sense of closure to the research paper and to emphasize the importance of the research and its potential impact. It should leave the reader with a clear understanding of the main findings and why they matter. The conclusion serves as the writer’s opportunity to showcase their contribution to the field and to inspire further research and action.

When to Write Research Paper Conclusion

The conclusion of a research paper should be written after the body of the paper has been completed. It should not be written until the writer has thoroughly analyzed and interpreted their findings and has written a complete and cohesive discussion of the research.

Before writing the conclusion, the writer should review their research paper and consider the key points that they want to convey to the reader. They should also review the research question, hypotheses, and methodology to ensure that they have addressed all of the necessary components of the research.

Once the writer has a clear understanding of the main findings and their significance, they can begin writing the conclusion. The conclusion should be written in a clear and concise manner, and should reiterate the main points of the research while also providing insights and recommendations for future research or action.

Characteristics of Research Paper Conclusion

The characteristics of a research paper conclusion include:

• Clear and concise: The conclusion should be written in a clear and concise manner, summarizing the key findings and their significance.
• Comprehensive: The conclusion should address all of the main points of the research paper, including the research question or problem, the methodology, the main results, and their implications.
• Future-oriented : The conclusion should provide insights and recommendations for future research or action, based on the findings of the research.
• Impressive : The conclusion should leave a lasting impression on the reader, emphasizing the importance of the research and its potential impact.
• Objective : The conclusion should be based on the evidence presented in the research paper, and should avoid personal biases or opinions.
• Unique : The conclusion should be unique to the research paper and should not simply repeat information from the introduction or body of the paper.

Advantages of Research Paper Conclusion

The advantages of a research paper conclusion include:

• Summarizing the key findings : The conclusion provides a summary of the main findings of the research, making it easier for the reader to understand the key points of the study.
• Emphasizing the significance of the research: The conclusion emphasizes the importance of the research and its potential impact, making it more likely that readers will take the research seriously and consider its implications.
• Providing recommendations for future research or action : The conclusion suggests practical recommendations for future research or action, based on the findings of the study.
• Providing closure to the research paper : The conclusion provides a sense of closure to the research paper, tying together the different sections of the paper and leaving a lasting impression on the reader.
• Demonstrating the writer’s contribution to the field : The conclusion provides the writer with an opportunity to showcase their contribution to the field and to inspire further research and action.

Limitations of Research Paper Conclusion

While the conclusion of a research paper has many advantages, it also has some limitations that should be considered, including:

• I nability to address all aspects of the research: Due to the limited space available in the conclusion, it may not be possible to address all aspects of the research in detail.
• Subjectivity : While the conclusion should be objective, it may be influenced by the writer’s personal biases or opinions.
• Lack of new information: The conclusion should not introduce new information that has not been discussed in the body of the research paper.
• Lack of generalizability: The conclusions drawn from the research may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, limiting the generalizability of the study.
• Misinterpretation by the reader: The reader may misinterpret the conclusions drawn from the research, leading to a misunderstanding of the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and...

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyse the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic . Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Make your writing flawless in 1 upload

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

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

• Concrete and specific
• Supported with a clear rationale
• Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar topics to yours. They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the lack of details regarding the participants’ characteristics.

Future research could further examine the differences in speech characteristics between exacerbated COPD patients, stable COPD patients, and healthy controls. It could also contribute to a deeper understanding of the acoustic measurements suitable for e-health measurements.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 November 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

Writing the parts of scientific reports

22 Writing the conclusion & recommendations

There are probably some overlaps between the Conclusion and the Discussion section. Nevertheless, this section gives you the opportunity to highlight the most important points in your report, and is sometimes the only section read. Think about what your research/ study has achieved, and the most important findings and ideas you want the reader to know. As all studies have limitations also think about what you were not able to cover (this shows that you are able to evaluate your own work objectively).

Possible structure of this section:

Use present perfect to sum up/ evaluate:

This study has explored/ has attempted …

Use past tense to state what your aim was and to refer to actions you carried out:

• This study was intended to analyse …
• The aim of this study was to …

Use present tense to evaluate your study and to state the generalizations and implications that you draw from your findings.

• The results add to the knowledge of …
• These findings s uggest that …

You can either use present tense or past tense to summarize your results.

• The findings reveal …
• It was found that …

Achievements of this study (positive)

• This study provides evidence that …
• This work has contributed to a number of key issues in the field such as …

Limitations of the study (negative)

• Several limitations should be noted. First …

Combine positive and negative remarks to give a balanced assessment:

• Although this research is somewhat limited in scope, its findings can provide a basis for future studies.
• Despite the limitations, findings from the present study can help us understand …

Use more cautious language (modal verbs may, can, could)

• There are a number of possible extensions of this research …
• The findings suggest the possibility for future research on …
• These results may be important for future studies on …
• Examining a wider context could/ would lead …

Or indicate that future research is needed

• There is still a need for future research to determine …
• Further studies should be undertaken to discover…
• It would be worthwhile to investigate …

Academic Writing in a Swiss University Context Copyright © 2018 by Irene Dietrichs. All Rights Reserved.

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of exploration. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and an ever-expanding knowledge base, refining the process of generating research recommendations becomes imperative.

But, what is a research recommendation?

Research recommendations are suggestions or advice provided to researchers to guide their study on a specific topic . They are typically given by experts in the field. Research recommendations are more action-oriented and provide specific guidance for decision-makers, unlike implications that are broader and focus on the broader significance and consequences of the research findings. However, both are crucial components of a research study.

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Although research recommendations and implications are distinct components of a research study, they are closely related. The differences between them are as follows:

Types of Research Recommendations

Recommendations in research can take various forms, which are as follows:

These recommendations aim to assist researchers in navigating the vast landscape of academic knowledge.

Let us dive deeper to know about its key components and the steps to write an impactful research recommendation.

Key Components of Research Recommendations

The key components of research recommendations include defining the research question or objective, specifying research methods, outlining data collection and analysis processes, presenting results and conclusions, addressing limitations, and suggesting areas for future research. Here are some characteristics of research recommendations:

Research recommendations offer various advantages and play a crucial role in ensuring that research findings contribute to positive outcomes in various fields. However, they also have few limitations which highlights the significance of a well-crafted research recommendation in offering the promised advantages.

The importance of research recommendations ranges in various fields, influencing policy-making, program development, product development, marketing strategies, medical practice, and scientific research. Their purpose is to transfer knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders, facilitating informed decision-making and improving outcomes in different domains.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations can be generated through various means, including algorithmic approaches, expert opinions, or collaborative filtering techniques. Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations.

1. Understand the Research Question:

Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study.

2. Review Existing Literature:

Familiarize yourself with relevant existing literature to help you identify gaps , and offer informed recommendations that contribute to the existing body of research.

3. Consider Research Methods:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different research methods in addressing the research question. Also, consider the nature of the data, the study design, and the specific objectives.

4. Identify Data Collection Techniques:

Gather dataset from diverse authentic sources. Include information such as keywords, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and citation metrics to provide a rich foundation for analysis.

5. Propose Data Analysis Methods:

Suggest appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected. Consider whether statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a mixed-methods approach is most suitable.

6. Consider Limitations and Ethical Considerations:

Acknowledge any limitations and potential ethical considerations of the study. Furthermore, address these limitations or mitigate ethical concerns to ensure responsible research.

7. Justify Recommendations:

Explain how your recommendation contributes to addressing the research question or objective. Provide a strong rationale to help researchers understand the importance of following your suggestions.

8. Summarize Recommendations:

Provide a concise summary at the end of the report to emphasize how following these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

By following these steps, you can create research recommendations that are actionable and contribute meaningfully to the success of the research project.

Download now to unlock some tips to improve your journey of writing research recommendations.

Example of a Research Recommendation

Here is an example of a research recommendation based on a hypothetical research to improve your understanding.

Research Recommendation: Enhancing Student Learning through Integrated Learning Platforms

Background:

The research study investigated the impact of an integrated learning platform on student learning outcomes in high school mathematics classes. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in student performance and engagement when compared to traditional teaching methods.

Recommendation:

In light of the research findings, it is recommended that educational institutions consider adopting and integrating the identified learning platform into their mathematics curriculum. The following specific recommendations are provided:

• Implementation of the Integrated Learning Platform:

Schools are encouraged to adopt the integrated learning platform in mathematics classrooms, ensuring proper training for teachers on its effective utilization.

• Professional Development for Educators:

Develop and implement professional programs to train educators in the effective use of the integrated learning platform to address any challenges teachers may face during the transition.

• Monitoring and Evaluation:

Establish a monitoring and evaluation system to track the impact of the integrated learning platform on student performance over time.

• Resource Allocation:

Allocate sufficient resources, both financial and technical, to support the widespread implementation of the integrated learning platform.

By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can harness the potential of the integrated learning platform and enhance student learning experiences and academic achievements in mathematics.

This example covers the components of a research recommendation, providing specific actions based on the research findings, identifying the target audience, and outlining practical steps for implementation.

Using AI in Research Recommendation Writing

Enhancing research recommendations is an ongoing endeavor that requires the integration of cutting-edge technologies, collaborative efforts, and ethical considerations. By embracing data-driven approaches and leveraging advanced technologies, the research community can create more effective and personalized recommendation systems. However, it is accompanied by several limitations. Therefore, it is essential to approach the use of AI in research with a critical mindset, and complement its capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Here are some limitations of integrating AI in writing research recommendation and some ways on how to counter them.

1. Data Bias

AI systems rely heavily on data for training. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI model may produce biased results or recommendations.

How to tackle: Audit regularly the model’s performance to identify any discrepancies and adjust the training data and algorithms accordingly.

2. Lack of Understanding of Context:

AI models may struggle to understand the nuanced context of a particular research problem. They may misinterpret information, leading to inaccurate recommendations.

How to tackle: Use AI to characterize research articles and topics. Employ them to extract features like keywords, authorship patterns and content-based details.

3. Ethical Considerations:

AI models might stereotype certain concepts or generate recommendations that could have negative consequences for certain individuals or groups.

How to tackle: Incorporate user feedback mechanisms to reduce redundancies. Establish an ethics review process for AI models in research recommendation writing.

4. Lack of Creativity and Intuition:

AI may struggle with tasks that require a deep understanding of the underlying principles or the ability to think outside the box.

How to tackle: Hybrid approaches can be employed by integrating AI in data analysis and identifying patterns for accelerating the data interpretation process.

5. Interpretability:

Many AI models, especially complex deep learning models, lack transparency on how the model arrived at a particular recommendation.

How to tackle: Implement models like decision trees or linear models. Provide clear explanation of the model architecture, training process, and decision-making criteria.

6. Dynamic Nature of Research:

Research fields are dynamic, and new information is constantly emerging. AI models may struggle to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape and may not be able to adapt to new developments.

How to tackle: Establish a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Regularly update the recommendation system based on user feedback and emerging research trends.

The integration of AI in research recommendation writing holds great promise for advancing knowledge and streamlining the research process. However, navigating these concerns is pivotal in ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies. Researchers need to understand the use of responsible use of AI in research and must be aware of the ethical considerations.

Exploring research recommendations plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of scientific inquiry. It serves as a compass, guiding researchers toward more robust methodologies, collaborative endeavors, and innovative approaches. Embracing these suggestions not only enhances the quality of individual studies but also contributes to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

The purpose of recommendations in research is to provide practical and actionable suggestions based on the study's findings, guiding future actions, policies, or interventions in a specific field or context. Recommendations bridges the gap between research outcomes and their real-world application.

To make a research recommendation, analyze your findings, identify key insights, and propose specific, evidence-based actions. Include the relevance of the recommendations to the study's objectives and provide practical steps for implementation.

Begin a recommendation by succinctly summarizing the key findings of the research. Clearly state the purpose of the recommendation and its intended impact. Use a direct and actionable language to convey the suggested course of action.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Promoting Research

Graphical Abstracts Vs. Infographics: Best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact

Dr. Sarah Chen stared at her computer screen, her eyes staring at her recently published…

• Publishing Research

10 Tips to Prevent Research Papers From Being Retracted

Research paper retractions represent a critical event in the scientific community. When a published article…

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

• Career Corner
• Reporting Research

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

• Diversity and Inclusion

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• AI in Academia
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Open Access Week 2024
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What factors would influence the future of open access (OA) publishing?

Research Implications & Recommendations

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | May 2024

T he research implications and recommendations are closely related but distinctly different concepts that often trip students up. Here, we’ll unpack them using plain language and loads of examples , so that you can approach your project with confidence.

Overview: Implications & Recommendations

• What are research implications ?
• What are research recommendations ?
• Examples of implications and recommendations
• The “ Big 3 ” categories
• How to write the implications and recommendations
• Template sentences for both sections
• Key takeaways

Implications & Recommendations 101

Let’s start with the basics and define our terms.

At the simplest level, research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings. More specifically, they answer the question, “ What do these findings mean?” . In other words, the implications section is where you discuss the broader impact of your study’s findings on theory, practice and future research.

This discussion leads us to the recommendations section , which is where you’ll propose specific actions based on your study’s findings and answer the question, “ What should be done next?” . In other words, the recommendations are practical steps that stakeholders can take to address the key issues identified by your study.

In a nutshell, then, the research implications discuss the broader impact and significance of a study’s findings, while recommendations provide specific actions to take, based on those findings. So, while both of these components are deeply rooted in the findings of the study, they serve different functions within the write up.

Need a helping hand?

Examples: Implications & Recommendations

The distinction between research implications and research recommendations might still feel a bit conceptual, so let’s look at one or two practical examples:

Let’s assume that your study finds that interactive learning methods significantly improve student engagement compared to traditional lectures. In this case, one of your recommendations could be that schools incorporate more interactive learning techniques into their curriculums to enhance student engagement.

Let’s imagine that your study finds that patients who receive personalised care plans have better health outcomes than those with standard care plans. One of your recommendations might be that healthcare providers develop and implement personalised care plans for their patients.

Now, these are admittedly quite simplistic examples, but they demonstrate the difference (and connection ) between the research implications and the recommendations. Simply put, the implications are about the impact of the findings, while the recommendations are about proposed actions, based on the findings.

The “Big 3” Categories

Now that we’ve defined our terms, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications – specifically, the different types or categories of research implications that exist.

Broadly speaking, implications can be divided into three categories – theoretical implications, practical implications and implications for future research .

Theoretical implications relate to how your study’s findings contribute to or challenge existing theories. For example, if a study on social behaviour uncovers new patterns, it might suggest that modifications to current psychological theories are necessary.

Practical implications , on the other hand, focus on how your study’s findings can be applied in real-world settings. For example, if your study demonstrated the effectiveness of a new teaching method, this would imply that educators should consider adopting this method to improve learning outcomes.

Practical implications can also involve policy reconsiderations . For example, if a study reveals significant health benefits from a particular diet, an implication might be that public health guidelines be re-evaluated.

Last but not least, there are the implications for future research . As the name suggests, this category of implications highlights the research gaps or new questions raised by your study. For example, if your study finds mixed results regarding a relationship between two variables, it might imply the need for further investigation to clarify these findings.

To recap then, the three types of implications are the theoretical, the practical and the implications on future research. Regardless of the category, these implications feed into and shape the recommendations , laying the foundation for the actions you’ll propose.

How To Write The Sections

Now that we’ve laid the foundations, it’s time to explore how to write up the implications and recommendations sections respectively.

Let’s start with the “ where ” before digging into the “ how ”. Typically, the implications will feature in the discussion section of your document, while the recommendations will be located in the conclusion . That said, layouts can vary between disciplines and institutions, so be sure to check with your university what their preferences are.

For the implications section, a common approach is to structure the write-up based on the three categories we looked at earlier – theoretical, practical and future research implications. In practical terms, this discussion will usually follow a fairly formulaic sentence structure – for example:

This research provides new insights into [theoretical aspect], indicating that…

The study’s outcomes highlight the potential benefits of adopting [specific practice] in..

This study raises several questions that warrant further investigation, such as…

Moving onto the recommendations section, you could again structure your recommendations using the three categories. Alternatively, you could structure the discussion per stakeholder group – for example, policymakers, organisations, researchers, etc.

Again, you’ll likely use a fairly formulaic sentence structure for this section. Here are some examples for your inspiration: 

Based on the findings, [specific group] should consider adopting [new method] to improve…

To address the issues identified, it is recommended that legislation should be introduced to…

Researchers should consider examining [specific variable] to build on the current study’s findings.

Remember, you can grab a copy of our tried and tested templates for both the discussion and conclusion sections over on the Grad Coach blog. You can find the links to those, as well as loads of other free resources, in the description 🙂

FAQs: Implications & Recommendations

Research implications & recommendations, how do i determine the implications of my study.

To do this, you’ll need to consider how your findings address gaps in the existing literature, how they could influence theory, practice, or policy, and the potential societal or economic impacts.

When thinking about your findings, it’s also a good idea to revisit your introduction chapter, where you would have discussed the potential significance of your study more broadly. This section can help spark some additional ideas about what your findings mean in relation to your original research aims. 

Should I discuss both positive and negative implications?

Absolutely. You’ll need to discuss both the positive and negative implications to provide a balanced view of how your findings affect the field and any limitations or potential downsides.

Can my research implications be speculative?

Yes and no. While implications are somewhat more speculative than recommendations and can suggest potential future outcomes, they should be grounded in your data and analysis. So, be careful to avoid overly speculative claims.

How do I formulate recommendations?

Ideally, you should base your recommendations on the limitations and implications of your study’s findings. So, consider what further research is needed, how policies could be adapted, or how practices could be improved – and make proposals in this respect.

How specific should my recommendations be?

Your recommendations should be as specific as possible, providing clear guidance on what actions or research should be taken next. As mentioned earlier, the implications can be relatively broad, but the recommendations should be very specific and actionable. Ideally, you should apply the SMART framework to your recommendations.

Can I recommend future research in my recommendations?

Absolutely. Highlighting areas where further research is needed is a key aspect of the recommendations section. Naturally, these recommendations should link to the respective section of your implications (i.e., implications for future research).

Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered quite a bit of ground here, so let’s quickly recap.

• Research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings.
• The recommendations section, on the other hand, is where you’ll propose specific actions based on those findings.
• You can structure your implications section based on the three overarching categories – theoretical, practical and future research implications.
• You can carry this structure through to the recommendations as well, or you can group your recommendations by stakeholder.

Remember to grab a copy of our tried and tested free dissertation template, which covers both the implications and recommendations sections. If you’d like 1:1 help with your research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service, where we hold your hand throughout the research journey, step by step.

You Might Also Like:

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

Writing A Dissertation While Working: A How-To Guide

Struggling to balance your dissertation with a full-time job and family? Learn practical strategies to achieve success.

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Learn how to fast-track your literature review by reading with intention and clarity. Dr E and Amy Murdock explain how.

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Thinking about using a dissertation or thesis writing service? You might want to reconsider that move. Here’s what you need to know.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

I am taking a Research Design and Statistical Methods class. I am wondering if I can get tutors to help me with my homework to understand more about research and statistics. I want to pass this class. I searched on YouTube and watched some videos but I still need more clarification.

Great examples. Thank you

the communication barrier between nurse and patients

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

How to write a strong conclusion for your research paper

Last updated

17 February 2024

Reviewed by

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Writing a research paper is a chance to share your knowledge and hypothesis. It's an opportunity to demonstrate your many hours of research and prove your ability to write convincingly.

Ideally, by the end of your research paper, you'll have brought your readers on a journey to reach the conclusions you've pre-determined. However, if you don't stick the landing with a good conclusion, you'll risk losing your reader’s trust.

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper involves a few important steps, including restating the thesis and summing up everything properly.

Find out what to include and what to avoid, so you can effectively demonstrate your understanding of the topic and prove your expertise.

• Why is a good conclusion important?

A good conclusion can cement your paper in the reader’s mind. Making a strong impression in your introduction can draw your readers in, but it's the conclusion that will inspire them.

• What to include in a research paper conclusion

There are a few specifics you should include in your research paper conclusion. Offer your readers some sense of urgency or consequence by pointing out why they should care about the topic you have covered. Discuss any common problems associated with your topic and provide suggestions as to how these problems can be solved or addressed.

The conclusion should include a restatement of your initial thesis. Thesis statements are strengthened after you’ve presented supporting evidence (as you will have done in the paper), so make a point to reintroduce it at the end.

Finally, recap the main points of your research paper, highlighting the key takeaways you want readers to remember. If you've made multiple points throughout the paper, refer to the ones with the strongest supporting evidence.

• Steps for writing a research paper conclusion

Many writers find the conclusion the most challenging part of any research project . By following these three steps, you'll be prepared to write a conclusion that is effective and concise.

• Step 1: Restate the problem

Always begin by restating the research problem in the conclusion of a research paper. This serves to remind the reader of your hypothesis and refresh them on the main point of the paper. 

When restating the problem, take care to avoid using exactly the same words you employed earlier in the paper.

• Step 2: Sum up the paper

After you've restated the problem, sum up the paper by revealing your overall findings. The method for this differs slightly, depending on whether you're crafting an argumentative paper or an empirical paper.

Argumentative paper: Restate your thesis and arguments

Argumentative papers involve introducing a thesis statement early on. In crafting the conclusion for an argumentative paper, always restate the thesis, outlining the way you've developed it throughout the entire paper.

It might be appropriate to mention any counterarguments in the conclusion, so you can demonstrate how your thesis is correct or how the data best supports your main points.

Empirical paper: Summarize research findings

Empirical papers break down a series of research questions. In your conclusion, discuss the findings your research revealed, including any information that surprised you.

Be clear about the conclusions you reached, and explain whether or not you expected to arrive at these particular ones.

• Step 3: Discuss the implications of your research

Argumentative papers and empirical papers also differ in this part of a research paper conclusion. Here are some tips on crafting conclusions for argumentative and empirical papers.

Argumentative paper: Powerful closing statement

In an argumentative paper, you'll have spent a great deal of time expressing the opinions you formed after doing a significant amount of research. Make a strong closing statement in your argumentative paper's conclusion to share the significance of your work.

You can outline the next steps through a bold call to action, or restate how powerful your ideas turned out to be.

Empirical paper: Directions for future research

Empirical papers are broader in scope. They usually cover a variety of aspects and can include several points of view.

To write a good conclusion for an empirical paper, suggest the type of research that could be done in the future, including methods for further investigation or outlining ways other researchers might proceed.

If you feel your research had any limitations, even if they were outside your control, you could mention these in your conclusion.

After you finish outlining your conclusion, ask someone to read it and offer feedback. In any research project you're especially close to, it can be hard to identify problem areas. Having a close friend or someone whose opinion you value read the research paper and provide honest feedback can be invaluable. Take note of any suggested edits and consider incorporating them into your paper if they make sense.

• Things to avoid in a research paper conclusion

Keep these aspects to avoid in mind as you're writing your conclusion and refer to them after you've created an outline.

Dry summary

Writing a memorable, succinct conclusion is arguably more important than a strong introduction. Take care to avoid just rephrasing your main points, and don't fall into the trap of repeating dry facts or citations.

You can provide a new perspective for your readers to think about or contextualize your research. Either way, make the conclusion vibrant and interesting, rather than a rote recitation of your research paper’s highlights.

Clichéd or generic phrasing

Your research paper conclusion should feel fresh and inspiring. Avoid generic phrases like "to sum up" or "in conclusion." These phrases tend to be overused, especially in an academic context and might turn your readers off.

The conclusion also isn't the time to introduce colloquial phrases or informal language. Retain a professional, confident tone consistent throughout your paper’s conclusion so it feels exciting and bold.

New data or evidence

While you should present strong data throughout your paper, the conclusion isn't the place to introduce new evidence. This is because readers are engaged in actively learning as they read through the body of your paper.

By the time they reach the conclusion, they will have formed an opinion one way or the other (hopefully in your favor!). Introducing new evidence in the conclusion will only serve to surprise or frustrate your reader.

Ignoring contradictory evidence

If your research reveals contradictory evidence, don't ignore it in the conclusion. This will damage your credibility as an expert and might even serve to highlight the contradictions.

Be as transparent as possible and admit to any shortcomings in your research, but don't dwell on them for too long.

Ambiguous or unclear resolutions

The point of a research paper conclusion is to provide closure and bring all your ideas together. You should wrap up any arguments you introduced in the paper and tie up any loose ends, while demonstrating why your research and data are strong.

Use direct language in your conclusion and avoid ambiguity. Even if some of the data and sources you cite are inconclusive or contradictory, note this in your conclusion to come across as confident and trustworthy.

• Examples of research paper conclusions

Your research paper should provide a compelling close to the paper as a whole, highlighting your research and hard work. While the conclusion should represent your unique style, these examples offer a starting point:

Ultimately, the data we examined all point to the same conclusion: Encouraging a good work-life balance improves employee productivity and benefits the company overall. The research suggests that when employees feel their personal lives are valued and respected by their employers, they are more likely to be productive when at work. In addition, company turnover tends to be reduced when employees have a balance between their personal and professional lives. While additional research is required to establish ways companies can support employees in creating a stronger work-life balance, it's clear the need is there.

Social media is a primary method of communication among young people. As we've seen in the data presented, most young people in high school use a variety of social media applications at least every hour, including Instagram and Facebook. While social media is an avenue for connection with peers, research increasingly suggests that social media use correlates with body image issues. Young girls with lower self-esteem tend to use social media more often than those who don't log onto social media apps every day. As new applications continue to gain popularity, and as more high school students are given smartphones, more research will be required to measure the effects of prolonged social media use.

What are the different kinds of research paper conclusions?

There are no formal types of research paper conclusions. Ultimately, the conclusion depends on the outline of your paper and the type of research you’re presenting. While some experts note that research papers can end with a new perspective or commentary, most papers should conclude with a combination of both. The most important aspect of a good research paper conclusion is that it accurately represents the body of the paper.

Can I present new arguments in my research paper conclusion?

Research paper conclusions are not the place to introduce new data or arguments. The body of your paper is where you should share research and insights, where the reader is actively absorbing the content. By the time a reader reaches the conclusion of the research paper, they should have formed their opinion. Introducing new arguments in the conclusion can take a reader by surprise, and not in a positive way. It might also serve to frustrate readers.

How long should a research paper conclusion be?

There's no set length for a research paper conclusion. However, it's a good idea not to run on too long, since conclusions are supposed to be succinct. A good rule of thumb is to keep your conclusion around 5 to 10 percent of the paper's total length. If your paper is 10 pages, try to keep your conclusion under one page.

What should I include in a research paper conclusion?

A good research paper conclusion should always include a sense of urgency, so the reader can see how and why the topic should matter to them. You can also note some recommended actions to help fix the problem and some obstacles they might encounter. A conclusion should also remind the reader of the thesis statement, along with the main points you covered in the paper. At the end of the conclusion, add a powerful closing statement that helps cement the paper in the mind of the reader.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 24 October 2024

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 12 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 31 January 2024

Last updated: 23 January 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, a whole new way to understand your customer is here, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

• Open access
• Published: 06 November 2024

Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study

• Estelle Jobson 1 ,
• Marta Garcia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6385-3372 2 ,
• Danika Sharek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4610-5804 3 ,
• Laura Risueño   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-4364 2 ,
• Sylvain Arnould 4 ,
• Aude Lemoine-André 4 ,
• Jan Geissler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9058-5097 3 ,
• Ana Amariutei   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-1166 5 ,
• Sabrina Grigolo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6653-6463 6 ,
• Begonya Nafria Escalera   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4494-3663 7 ,
• Thomas Smith 8 ,
• Oriana Sousa 9 ,
• Linda Stone 10 &
• Janet West 11  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  10 , Article number:  116 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

195 Accesses

Metrics details

Patient involvement is crucial in healthcare, a factor increasingly recognised by life sciences companies and research institutes. This article presents a case study on Servier, a life sciences company that founded a patient expert board, ahead of launching a new research and development (R&D) institute. The aim was to foster a patient-centric culture within the company. The case study explores key developments in patient and public involvement, emphasising a shift from paternalistic to patient-centred approaches, noting few available case studies on patient board collaborations in life sciences. It outlines the evolution of the board, its impact, and practical lessons learned, with related recommendations. The patient board resulted from a three-way collaboration between the company, Patvocates (a patient consultancy), and patient experts recruited. The patient consultancy played a crucial role in project management, governance, and facilitating relationships. The case study provides the context, timeframe, foundations laid, engagement of patient experts, and foundational values, including: co-creation, fair market value remuneration, voluntary participation, and patient-centric meeting protocol. Eighteen patient experts, representing ten disease areas and ten European countries, joined the board and helped prioritise and co-create projects. Ideas for activities were sourced from brainstorming sessions and an in-company challenge. The collaboration yielded five core ideas, each forming a working group. The study describes the groups and their outputs: a patient advisory council, an interactive gallery of patient experience in R&D, patient engagement and entrepreneurship in life sciences, creating patient-focused decentralised trials (DCTs), and staff training on patient engagement. The article emphasises how the organic evolution of the collaboration led to significant insights. Hurdles faced by the company included: upstream planning, cross-company buy-in, compliance, and internal resource allocation. Recommendations for the wider community included: identifying and contracting patient partners; clarifying roles; managing expectations; building trust; logistics; and sustainability. This case study presents a practical, positive example of patient engagement within a life sciences company, offering insights into the establishing, running, and the impact of collaborating with a patient expert board. Lessons learned and recommendations may serve as a model for other companies seeking to engage with patients and evolve towards a more patient-centric approach in their strategies.

Plain English summary

Patient involvement in healthcare is crucial for developing patient-centred approaches, and life sciences companies and research institutes are increasingly recognising this. Servier, a life sciences company, established a patient expert board to support a patient-centric culture within the organisation, at the time of creating a new research and development (R&D) institute. This article presents a case study on the patient board and its impact. The patient board resulted from a three-way collaboration between the company, Patvocates (a patient consultancy), and patient experts recruited. The patient consultancy played a key role in guiding the project. The study provides the context, founding values, engagement of patient experts, and methodology used to establish the board. Eighteen patient experts, representing ten disease areas and ten European countries, joined and helped prioritise and co-create projects. From the collaboration, five core ideas emerged. The case study highlights that the organic evolution of the collaboration provided significant insights. Hurdles faced included cross-company buy-in, compliance, time, and resources. The study also offers a set of recommendations for the wider community, including identifying and contracting patient partners, clarifying roles, managing expectations, building trust, logistics, and sustainability. This case study presents a positive, constructive model of patient engagement within a life sciences company, offering insights into establishing and running a patient expert board and its impact on the company culture and R&D practices. The lessons learned and recommendations may serve as a model for other companies wanting to engage with patients and develop more patient-centric approach in their strategies.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Patient and public engagement evolving from the mid-1900s onwards.

Patient and public engagement in global healthcare and public health has evolved progressively from a historically passive role towards a participative and active model [ 1 ]. This development has several driving forces and is increasingly covering different aspects of health, including R&D. The foundations for this evolution were laid from the mid-1900s onwards.

In 1946, the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution redefined health and the importance of patient and public engagement. When the WHO Constitution was adopted [ 2 ], a new definition of health was established: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ This definition has paved the way to a more complex, deeper, and patient-centric understanding.

Simultaneously, the WHO Constitution emphasised the value of the active education and engagement of people, the public, in their own health. Together, these two points highlight an increasingly holistic and multidisciplinary view of health and the growing involvement of patients in their own health management, which has since become more widespread practice.

Regulatory bodies catalysing patient involvement in medicines R&D

The journey towards patient-centricity has gained momentum due to shifts in the regulatory landscape, with regulatory agencies increasingly seeking input from patients to inform decision-making [ 3 ]. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has actively promoted patient engagement through several initiatives. These include Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) from 2009 onwards; a discussion document on patient engagement in medical device clinical trials in 2018 [ 4 ], with a resulting guidance published in 2022 [ 5 ]; and a pioneering four-part guidance series on patient-focused drug development [ 6 ], the first of which, in 2018, focused on collecting comprehensive and representative input, including from patients [ 7 ].

In a guidance aimed at the pharmaceutical industry published in 2023, the FDA stated that: patients are the ultimate stakeholder in the outcomes of medical treatments; that it is developing systematic approaches to better incorporate the patient voice in medicines development and evaluation; and that patient experience data (PXD) collected early can help identify unmet patient needs [ 8 ].

Similar trends in Europe include the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014 and patient involvement in decision-making at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [ 9 ]. After at least a decade of groundwork, the EMA launched its Public Engagement Department in 2014, emphasised the involvement of young patients in 2017 [ 10 ], and in 2022 published a revised version of its guiding framework, Engagement Framework: EMA and patients, consumers and their organisations [ 11 ].

A 2024 international review of patient engagement and PXD across different stakeholders in different regions, including regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, showed encouraging developments in guidance and policies. Input from more than 50 initiatives indicated, however, that further operational and standardised processes were still needed to ensure global integration across different contexts [ 12 ].

A shift away from a traditional, paternalistic model of healthcare

The pre-existing, paternalistic healthcare system was largely focused on the ‘consultation’ (medical appointment), a transaction between a patient and a healthcare provider, in which the latter assumed a dominant role throughout the interaction, including on decision-making [ 1 ]. This interaction, while typically taking place individual-to-individual, represented the interface between the healthcare system and broader society.

At a higher level, traditional healthcare systems have also determined the health outcomes of patients in a similarly paternalistic way, offering individuals little opportunity for engagement. This traditional approach has largely ignored patients’ opinions and needs, excluding them from decision-making and other types of exchanges [ 1 ].

New models of collaboration between health professionals and patients have led to the concept of the ‘patient-centred’ and ‘patient-centric’ healthcare system [ 13 ]. One of the main differences of the model is the introduction of shared decision-making, which has proved effective in the implementation of health programmes. Patient organisations have also played a key role, driving positive change towards a shared and collaborative decision-making model [ 14 ].

Furthermore, the importance of the patient as an individual resonates in other aspects of healthcare. For example, medicine has moved from empirical approaches to personalised medicine, and from clinical trials focused on capturing clinical endpoints to including PROs. These changes fuel an ever-growing need for patient engagement in R&D.

Table 1 defines relevant terms and concepts used in this article, providing relevant published definitions. Figure  1 illustrates a considerable evolution in approaches: from the paternalistic (healthcare providers and health systems toward the patient, offering information and recommendations), to a more patient-centred approach (increasingly enabling patients, with their family and caregivers to make informed decisions). The third stage of development illustrated is partnerships of care, in which interactions are increasingly guided by patient preferences, reciprocal exchanges and dialogue, and ideally by collaborative, shared decision-making.

Source Pomey and Lebel, 2016 [ 15 ]

The evolution of patient care, from a paternalistic to patient-centric and partnership models

Patients as drivers in healthcare, identifying new needs and broadening scope

From around 2000 onwards, the concept of P4 medicine emerged: predictive, preventive, personalised, and participatory [ 20 , 21 ]. P4 medicine aimed to move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine to a more individualised and proactive model, considering the unique genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors influencing an individual's health. Notably, ‘participatory’ indicates the role of the individual in optimising their health, too.

Patients are increasingly perceived, not only as the ultimate beneficiary or end-user of health technologies, but as a key driver within healthcare systems, of improving value, and of identifying unmet needs. New unmet needs, which can be identified together with patients, can provide new insights, innovation, and momentum for making patient engagement more common practice [ 22 ].

Patient-centricity is gradually reaching the domain of medical training, in certain settings. Patient-centred care has evolved into a substantial component of undergraduate medical programmes preparing professionals for applying it in clinical practice. Indeed, systematic reviews show that patient-centred care results in increased adherence to management protocols, reduced morbidity, and improved quality of life [ 23 ].

The shift towards patient-centricity thus provides a broader scope, going beyond defining health priorities for patients and the care services they may access. In the past decade, it has spread to several other health-related areas, including medical research—classically contained within academia, the life sciences industry, and regulatory bodies [ 24 ].

The evolving concept of ‘the patient’

Similarly, the concept of ‘the patient’ has changed from a person who is living with a disease to ‘patient expert’ with high-level expertise of its daily ramifications. This expands to a ‘patient partner’ which can include caregivers, members of the public, or patient groups, representing the patient’s needs across diverse scenarios (Table  1 ).

The concept of the patient has thus evolved from a generic or individual patient to a more collective or generalised representation, emphasising the broader significance of patient perspectives, and involvement, including as an actor advocating for changes in healthcare practices and policies. It may also include patient ambassadors, public figures, or key opinion leaders who can play a role in reducing disease-related stigma, empowering patients, and driving positive change such as ‘pro-patient policies’ [ 25 ]. When considering needs and preferences and expertise of patients, we increasingly consider the whole support system, including family and caregivers.

Partnering with patients of varying and increasing expertise and skills

As the definition in Table  1 indicates, the skills of patient partners may vary considerably. Figure  2 illustrates how, as such, they may be grouped within four ‘types’, depending on their: personal (disease) experience; understanding of technical matters; professional technical expertise gained in patient engagement; and connection with the broader patient community [ 26 ].

Source Bettina Ryll, Melanoma Patient Network Europe, 2022 [ 26 ]. (Reproduced with permission under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Types of partners and expertise: patients, patient experts, patient advocates, and patient advocate experts.

To ensure that patient collaborations are meaningful, appropriate and useful, it is important to identify the skills and knowledge required for participation and to fit the right person to the right task.

The emerging prerequisite that research be patient-centric to obtain funding

Medicines R&D, whether conducted through the pharmaceutical industry or in other settings, is strongly driven by trends, practices, and discoveries from academia, in universities and their hospitals, and from other research institutions. While in certain settings and countries, academic and research institutions have adopted patient-centricity, in others the practice is still emerging. Funding bodies are increasingly requiring that R&D demonstrate that it incorporate patient and public involvement, and that the results of funded research be disseminated to the public in a patient-centric manner [ 27 ].

The impacts of patient engagement and of related measurable outcomes in the medicine lifecycle

The potential impacts of patient engagement have been written about in numerous publications. Positive impacts include: improving discovery, development, and evaluation of new effective medicines by identifying and understanding better the unmet needs of patients; establishing research priorities based on unmet requirements; optimising clinical trial design, outcome measures, and endpoint development; and improving the recruitment and retention of participants in clinical trials [ 3 , 28 , 29 ].

The impact of patient engagement on clinical research and its performance has been increasingly quantified, using different metrics, and showcased. For instance, the incorporation of patient insights in clinical trial design has the potential to prevent protocol amendments and enhance enrolment, patient adherence, and retention. These factors may significantly reduce the development cost of new drugs and reduce times to product market launch [ 29 ].

Going forward, further development of patient-centric measures and their systematic implementation across the R&D process will be needed to open up new perspectives on traditional models of R&D, in particular the value of incorporating patient insights [ 3 ].

A lack of published case studies on patient engagement in the life sciences industry

Despite this shift in mindset becoming more widely accepted, its practical application remains uncharted territory for many stakeholders across the healthcare spectrum [ 30 ]. When systematic reviews were performed, although the feasibility of the patient engagement process was confirmed, a certain lack of consistency with regard to final outcomes and standardisation of approaches was observed [ 18 , 25 , 31 ]. Indeed, some organisations have even pointed to a high level of confusion around how to operationalise a patient-centric approach or achieve the necessary culture change (including matters such as legal issues and conflict of interests) [ 29 ].

The life sciences industry thus faces this challenge: How can patient-centricity be embedded in their work and company culture? Patient-centricity represents an emerging mindset, unfolding and developing in situ, being co-created, as it is applied. Yet there are relatively few peer-reviewed published cases to showcase how collaboration can take place between life sciences’ companies and patients, to provide inspiration, models, or lessons learned for the public, and for other companies [ 32 ]. Reputable, co-created frameworks for monitoring and evaluation exist and they need to be applied to case studies, and related findings and learnings shared [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. The case study below provides an example of such a collaboration and an opportunity to learn from its recommendations.

Methodology

Introducing the case study on the servier patient board.

It is against this background, and in pursuit of fostering patient-embedded research and driving a cultural shift within the organisation, that Servier (hereafter, ‘the company’) embarked on a transformation of its company culture in 2019, aiming to transition towards a patient-centric model [ 36 ].

The company has stated publicly its aims to integrate the patient’s voice at the heart of its activities, from research to support ‘beyond the pill’ [ 36 ]. To this end, it created different structures devoted to patient advocacy and engagement, and adapted existing processes to facilitate collaborations with the patient community.

This article serves as a case study, to describe how a patient board was founded, the board governance processes, the activities, its progress and achievements, and its impact on the company culture: the company’s approach to medicines R&D and to the conceptualisation of the institute. For this type of article, we cannot follow traditional, scientific research methodology. Rather, we aim to provide readers with both a practical case study and an opportunity to explore lessons learned and recommendations of potential use for other organisations who would like to integrate patient engagement in their internal strategies. We believe that the level of detail provided in this article could be useful for readers interested in implementing similar projects.

The context: planning to launch an R&D institute

Servier was planning to launch towards the end of 2023 a new R&D premises, the Paris Saclay R&D Institute (hereafter ‘the institute’). This institute is located in Saclay, south-west of central Paris.

Instead of creating a classical R&D infrastructure, typically providing access to qualified employees only, the company envisioned a cross-disciplinary hub. They aimed for it to be accessible to the public, linked to the local scientific community, including a biotechnological incubator, and guided by a clear patient-centric vision.

Creating a patient expert board within the company

The company thus took this opportunity to accelerate its patient-centricity transformation programme, involving different stakeholders from the patient community. This transformation included the creation of the Servier Saclay R&D Patient Expert Board (hereafter ‘the patient board’ or ‘the board’), considered to be an ideas-generation phase, to guide the process and to see it to realisation.

By creating the patient board, the company was striving to embed a new collaborative model. It required a collective change, from a traditional to a forward-looking way of working, in which patients are recognised as a key stakeholder and driver [ 37 , 38 ].

Timeframe of the case study: 2021–2023

The board was initiated in June 2021, close to two years before the opening of the institute in February 2023. The company’s goals in establishing the board included to gather insights, identify priorities, and catalyse different perspectives with which to forge a strategic plan.

The board concluded the process of ideas-generation and implementation of first proposals two years later, towards the end of 2023, when the new R&D institute was formally opened. Of the 18 patient board members initially engaged, 12 visited the institute in person, to review and reflect on the progress made by the board.

Initial steps of the company’s ‘Patient-In Action Plan’

Upstream, from 2019 on, the company set out a programme to assess the staff’s exposure and knowledge regarding patient engagement activities. This programme, called the ‘Patient-In Action Plan’, took place internally over three stages: training, a survey, and a challenge.

After two training modules sourced from Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) were held, the company held an internal survey, asking 400 R&D staff about their previous experience in patient engagement. Results indicated that despite interest in the topic, only one-third (35.2%) of respondents had had some previous experience. The need to adapt internal processes and resources was thus identified.

Worldwide staff, from diverse departments in the company, were then invited to an internal challenge, calling for projects and suggestions of activities to carry out in the new research institute, under the topic of patient engagement in R&D. A total of 84 ideas from different teams were proposed for consideration.

The role of the patient consultancy in a three-way collaboration

The board was founded on a three-way collaboration: the company, a patient consultancy, and the patient board. To set it up, the company worked closely with Patvocates, a patient consultancy, think-tank, and social enterprise founded and run by patient advocates (hereafter ‘the consultancy’) [ 39 ]. The consultancy facilitates relationships between patients and patient organisations with third parties seeking to collaborate with them. Crucially, in its own governance model, the consultancy embodies leadership by, with, and for patients, which helped generate trust from the patient board.

The consultancy was involved from the initial stages of the project management, governance, and strategy. Beyond facilitating engagement with patients and the processes of the board, it provided expert patient advice, including insights gained from lived experience as patient advocates. Indeed, half of the members of the consultancy involved had prior experience as patient advocates.

A core team managing the overall process was made up of two company employees and three members of the consultancy. The two company employees attended all board meetings and activities. Additionally, ten other company staff attended ad-hoc meetings as occasional observers, to foster company-wide learning about the process of patient engagement.

Engaging patient partners via different channels

To identify experienced and skilled patient experts, the company approached the European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI). EUPATI, a public–private partnership founded in 2012, aimed to become a ‘game-changer’ for patient empowerment in Europe and beyond [ 30 , 40 ]. EUPATI focuses on education and training to increase the capacity and capability of patients to understand and contribute to medicines R&D.

Notably, as of early 2024, EUPATI has trained up a body of 331 patient experts who have graduated as EUPATI Fellows [ 41 , 42 ]. The company issued a proposal via EUPATI’s matchmaking tool, EUPATI Connect (formerly the EUPATI Matchmaking Platform). It was thus from this pool of Fellows that most of the board members were recruited. Further patient experts were recruited via the consultancy and the company’s network. Due to the nature of this project, there were no formal inclusion or exclusion criteria in the recruitment process. All participants, however, received information about the level of involvement and technical abilities required, the objectives, and the possibility to leave, if desired.

Make-up of the patient board: numbers, countries represented, and disease areas

Initially, 18 board members were recruited. Two patient experts left the board in the second year due to personal reasons. A total of 16 (88.8%) remained engaged through to the end of the ideas-generation phase of board activities.

The 18 patient experts recruited represented ten countries of residence across Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

The ten disease areas represented were:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Breast cancer

Head and neck cancer

Hereditary cancers

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Ovarian small cell carcinoma

Paediatric cancers

Cystic fibrosis

Endometriosis

Paediatric illnesses

Parkinson’s disease, including young onset

Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Sjögren disease

Traumatic brain injury

Foundational values of patient engagement

To establish the patient board, the key founding values, based on the PFMD Quality Criteria for Patient Engagement [ 43 , 44 ] were agreed and used by the group. The PFMD guidance proposes seven foundational criteria (values), appearing in Fig.  3 : 1. shared purpose; 2. respect and accessibility; 3. representativeness of stakeholders; 4. roles and responsibilities; 5. capacity and capability of engagement; 6. transparency in communication and documentation; and 7. continuity and sustainability.

Source PFMD, 2018 [ 43 ]. (Reproduced with permission under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Seven patient engagement quality criteria.

In addition to these founding values, further principles integrated were: co-creation; fair remuneration according to local compliance rules; and voluntary opt-in and opt-out participation on the different projects proposed.

Exploring the value of co-creation

Co-creation is a core principle of patient engagement. It can be described as ‘the collaborative approach of creative problem solving between diverse stakeholders at all stages of an initiative, from the problem identification and solution generation through to implementation and evaluation’ [ 16 ]. Integral to co-creation is a two-way exchange and feedback loop, promoting learning while doing and adjustment throughout the process.

Quotes from group participants, reflecting on their experience of this co-creation process and the integration of the patient voice, are provided in Table  2 . While these quotes were a spontaneous expression, we recognise that there is scope for a more systematic qualitative assessment of participant experience, cross-checking with the foundational values.

Drawing on fair market value to remunerate patient experts

Remunerating patient experts, especially when they live in different countries under different regulations, requires careful consideration and planning. Over many years, it has become an increasingly common practice and several guidelines have been developed [ 9 , 45 ].

To align with fair and transparent remuneration, regarding participation in the patient board, the company considered local compliance regulations and fair market value. The countries of residence of patient board members or their patient associations were taken into consideration.

Fostering voluntary opt-in and opt-out participation

All activities were proposed to the patient board. Patient experts were then free to choose working groups and projects that interested them, regardless of their expertise, geographical location, or disease affiliation. Patient board members were also free to leave the project at any time and with no obligation to provide a reason.

Refining meeting protocol and enabling input into summary reports

Due to the disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, patient board meetings were held purely via videoconference. This meant patient board members could attend, irrespective of their mobility and ability to travel.

Early meetings were facilitated by using digital brainstorming tools, which were simplified as the project advanced, to encourage the participation of all group members. Goals included: identifying key priorities; arranging them into suitable thematic working groups and identifying relevant aims; and matching participation to individuals’ skills and interests.

Ahead of each meeting, board members received an agenda and pre-reading. During the meetings, participants could add comments, suggestions, and relevant links in the chat functions. This was important for patient partners who had difficulties speaking or with the working language of the meetings, English. Meetings were recorded for note-taking or for replay. Board members received meeting summaries afterwards, for their comment, or amendments, and reports were amended, according to feedback.

In this section, we define results as what the co-creation process yielded, both in ideas and in outputs: from defining five broad areas to five specific working groups, plus a plenary group. We provide a summary of the goals, the activities and progress resulting from each group, and a snapshot of its members.

Selection of projects and priorities

Results of the board activities, the main projects, and priorities of the engagement were identified and selected via two sources:

Brainstorming sessions organised between the board, the company, and a facilitator: over two sessions, key ideas from board members were identified and voted on.

Ideas from the company’s internal challenge: as mentioned above, 84 ideas from within the company were shared with the patient board and then voted on. Decisive criteria for voting were: interest for the patient community; timing; feasibility; input on research; and input on the broader patient community.

Five core ideas identified and related working groups formed

To ensure a progressive implementation of proposals, five core ideas were retained from the topics most voted on. Five working groups were then established, which included members of the patient board, company staff and, as needed, facilitators from the consultancy. Over the collaboration, 18 meetings were held.

Brief descriptions of the five resulting working groups (goals, activities and progress, and number of participants per group) appear below. For all working groups, however, activities have since extended beyond those described.

Working group 1. patient advisory council

The patient board expressed an interest in creating, by disease area, a consultative patient group to accompany project development of new therapies by the company. The group aimed to situate, systematise, and structure the patient voice in the company’s therapeutic projects by creating standardised processes to support R&D teams, from early stages and along the development plan, until post-commercialisation of the given therapy.

Activities and progress

The group accomplished the objective of creating a detailed process: from identifying patient communities, to topics to be discussed, type of members to include, and both rules of exchanges for the organisation and timing of implementation of key steps in the research programme.

Forthcoming: At the time of writing, the company had started to pilot this process, which remained flexible, and aimed to apply it to three indications or disease areas.

Working group members:

8 patient board members and 4 company employees.

Working group 2. an interactive gallery of patient experience in R&D

The patient board expressed an interest in creating a visual representation of patient-centricity inside the institute. Approaches suggested including exploring the use of shared spaces and translating different elements of the common vision, about the impact of medical research on patients’ lives, into interactive, multichannel media.

An art exhibition, showcasing art produced by patients, was held on-site for institute staff and visitors.

A co-created podcast series, ‘The Patient’s Side of the Story’, showcasing patient stories and exploring how R&D and innovation can benefit patients, was launched and shared with company and institute staff, patients, their families/caregivers, and the public.

A series of conferences, cinema, and a theatre play about living with chronic illness were held periodically in the Saclay neighbourhood and attended by company and institute staff.

Forthcoming: A series of art works to express patient feelings about their disease is being co-produced between patients and consolidated artists, displayed on-site, and featured in the podcast series.

11 patient board members and 3 company employees.

Working group 3. patient engagement and entrepreneurship in life sciences

This project aims to develop patient engagement for biotechnology and to support patient entrepreneurs. The patient board expressed an interest in co-creating and developing processes and rules for involving patients in Spartners, an incubator operated by BioLabs and Servier, that serves as a membership-based network of facilities to support resident start-ups [ 46 ]. The incubator aims to introduce these resident start-ups to the fundamentals of patient engagement and the value of integrating patient views in their projects.

Approaches suggested from early- to late-stage involvement included: bringing insights from patients’ lived experience and expertise; exploring synergies across disease areas; participating in reflection, discussion, and design; and learning about practical challenges in this domain. In addition, through the above-mentioned internal challenge, employees expressed the wish to define models and rules that could enable them to support patient entrepreneurs, while adhering to rules of compliance.

The working group developed a guidance and a patient engagement training plan for entrepreneurs and start-ups incubated in Spartners, thereby fostering patient-centric dialogue at the earliest stage of start-up activity. This enables them to benefit from Servier’s learnings in patient engagement.

The working group ran brainstorming sessions to identify ways in which initiatives led by patients (or their relatives) could be identified, evaluated, selected, and supported; it is currently defining the format by which patient initiatives can be supported.

Forthcoming: Further projects to foster patient-driven entrepreneurship are being developed.

7 patient board members and 8 company employees.

Working group 4. patient-focused decentralised trials (DCTs)

The patient board expressed an interest in co-creating guidelines on patient-centric running of decentralised clinical trials (DCTs), as an option for certain forthcoming trials sponsored by the company.

The working group carried out brainstorming to explore the opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, and concerns of patients related to DCTs, notably those defined as hybrid (combining traditional and decentralised approaches to trials).

The working group proposed and consolidated six principles relating to the process of co-designing hybridised DCTs. It co-created a guidance document, which was then applied to a pilot project, relating to a rare cancer study.

9 patient board members and 4 company employees.

Working group 5. training on patient engagement

The patient board expressed an interest in having company staff trained on soft and hard skills needed to facilitate incorporating the principles of patient-centricity into the company’s R&D projects. This training was linked to a broader goal of changing the mindset within the company, relating to patient engagement.

The working group consolidated a patient engagement training programme to be used by company R&D collaborators.

A training course on the fundamentals of patient engagement was developed and delivered to R&D professionals, together with patient experts from EUPATI.

Forthcoming: Training on soft skills is in development.

7 patient board members and 3 company employees.

Plenary activities: Servier Saclay R&D Patient Expert Board

As a plenary, the patient board met to advance the patient engagement ideas, to vote for projects, and to receive updates on plans, including on the five working groups.

The patient board members took part in working groups of their individual preference, and some expressed interest in participating in a resulting publication. The result was this article, patient-led, involving co-authorship with employees from the company and consultancy, and patient contributors.

Most of the patient board visited the institute in person, a visit which marked the end of the ideas-generation phase. Thereafter, the company offered to the board the opportunity to collaborate on the R&D patient engagement strategic plan for 2024 onwards, which is now being implemented. Most of the board members expressed a wish to continue providing ideas for future collaborations.

First 18, then 16 patient board members, 2 company employees, and 3 consultancy staff.

Integration of the patient voice into working group development and outputs

Throughout the collaboration, patient board members were consulted, and their opinions noted. Table 2 provides quotes from the patient board and the consultancy, indicating their reflections on the collaboration.

The period of collaboration enabled all members of the company, the consultancy, and the patient board to experience a work in progress–its opportunities, challenges, and the ways in which difficulties were navigated and negotiated.

Because this process was relatively organic, it led to considerable learning on challenges and an opportunity to try out solutions and identify recommendations for best practices. These learnings are discussed below.

Challenges unique to the company, as part of the life sciences industry

Life sciences companies who are interested in creating patient boards face challenges unique to their industries. These include:

Upstream planning : Laying the foundations within the company with a good lead time will facilitate its internal buy-in. This requires integrating patient-centricity in its strategic vision and commitment at a senior-management level, exploring how it will relate to R&D goals of the company, and developing an initial plan. Servier communicated this to the public and its stakeholders via its Annual Reports, with increasing level of detail, from 2020, before the board was created. While this process is not the focus of this case study, it could be of interest for future publications to share good practice and learnings [ 36 , 47 ].

Uneven cross-company buy-in : By ascertaining internal levels of awareness and interest, which were varied (as can be expected in large organisations), the company was able to lay the foundations for patient engagement. These foundations enabled that which followed to be meaningful, impactful, and authentic. Conducting any activity for the first time is challenging and calls for motivation and commitment. Having the endorsement of senior management facilitated buy-in from other staff members.

Compliance : Because the patient board members were living in several countries, different compliance regulations applied to how the company was permitted to interact with them. It was thus challenging to find a balance between defining meeting agendas upfront and enabling dynamic brainstorming sessions. This required the company to provide transparent feedback to board members on what suggestions were likely to be integrated into the given working group’s projects. Having clear, standardised internal procedures for engaging with patient experts, locally and across numerous countries, is crucial.

Resources : Running a patient board calls for considerable investment, including internal expertise, time, and funds. Resources need to be anticipated and allocated upstream. Having a stable leadership team contributes considerably to the buy-in of participants, builds trust, and contributes to the sustainability of projects.

Defining value : It is a challenge to translate such a collaboration into tangible value or measurable impact in a company’s R&D processes, both short-term and long-term. Since a patient board may not be directly linked to a therapeutic product or to specific projects, staff may need to extend themselves beyond their normal responsibilities, to stay motivated and engaged.

Applying and adapting tools end-to-end, from project administration, and monitoring, to evaluation : It is advisable for companies to select carefully and upstream from reputable guidelines, checklists, and tools, including monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and to use them systematically to ensure a full end-to-end quality assessment, including post-project results [ 33 , 34 , 35 ].

Challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations for the broader community

In addition to these unique industry-specific challenges, more general challenges and solutions were noted in the experience of creating a patient board. Table 3 provides this broader overview of challenges, both relating to technical and adaptive skills. It provides some examples that emerged through the process and suggests potential solutions. Figure  4 provides a visual synopsis of these key focus areas, challenges, and corresponding actions.

Key focus areas and actions for creating a patient board. Note Available for reproduction under a Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

This case study presents a constructive, practical, and positive example of patient engagement within a life sciences company, ahead of the launch of its R&D institute, shaping a more patient-centric company culture. It highlights a notable gap, as there are relatively few such peer-reviewed, published case studies in this area to date. Via a patient board, it is possible to bring together patient experts to engage meaningfully, purposefully, and impactfully with the life sciences industry, creating and working towards shared goals, within the legal and compliance regulations that the life sciences industry faces. We aim to offer readers valuable insights into the establishing and running of such a patient expert board, and the impacts such an approach may create.

Such a process, however, is not without challenges, including those challenges unique to the company, and those which can be more broadly applied to patient engagement collaborations. Over a two-year, organic, ideas-generation phase of this board, experience and reflection led to many learnings, with ongoing adaptations and actions continuing to emerge. A summary of considerations, lessons learned, approaches applied, and resulting recommendations may serve as a model to be used–and adapted–by companies or organisations seeking to engage with patients in a meaningful, and non-tokenistic way. We encourage others to plan well ahead to strive for diversity in their patient engagement work, to build trust and transparency with care, to seek a balance between expectations and feasibility, to devote attention to sustainability, and to never underestimate the importance of preparation and practical considerations.

The life sciences industry stands at a transformative crossroads. Going forward, it can transcend its traditional product-centric model and embrace a patient-centric ethos that incorporates elements of the voices, values, and needs of patients. That this is such uncharted territory for many makes it a ripe opportunity to share experiences, learn, and build new ways. We look forward to seeing more such studies published, incorporating assessment of how similar engagement affects the product-centric model, its sustainability, and the evolution of measurable company strategies, structures, and practices.

We hope that this case study will be one of many to come, in which companies or organisations can, by sharing experiences and learnings, forge new ground and develop stronger patient-centric practices in healthcare settings and drug development.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Decentralised trial

European Medicines Agency

European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Patient Focused Medicines Development

Patient-reported outcomes

Patient experience data

Research and development

United Kingdom

United States

World Health Organization

Taylor K. Paternalism, participation and partnership—the evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:150–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization [Internet]. WHO; 1948 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/about/accountability/governance/constitution

Stergiopoulos S, Michaels DL, Kunz BL, Getz KA. Measuring the impact of patient engagement and patient centricity in clinical research and development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54:103–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-019-00034-0 .

U.S. FDA PEAC. Patient Engagement in Medical Device Clinical Trials: Discussion Document [Internet]. U.S. FDA; 2018 [cited 2024 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/117890/download

U.S. FDA. Patient Engagement in the Design and Conduct of Medical Device Clinical Studies: Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders [Internet]. Patient Engagem. Des. Conduct Med. Device Clin. Stud. FDA; 2022 [cited 2024 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-engagement-design-and-conduct-medical-device-clinical-studies

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Guidance Series for Enhancing the Incorporation of the Patient’s Voice in Medical Product Development and Regulatory Decision Making (Four Guidances) [Internet]. FDA. 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/fda-patient-focused-drug-development-guidance-series-enhancing-incorporation-patients-voice-medical

U.S. FDA. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Collecting Comprehensive and Representative Input [Internet]. FDA; 2018 Jun. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-collecting-comprehensive-and-representative-input

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Benefit-Risk Assessment for New Drug and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry [Internet]. U.S. FDA; 2023 Oct. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/benefit-risk-assessment-new-drug-and-biological-products

CIOMS Working Group XI on Patient involvement in the development, regulation and safe use of medicines. Patient involvement in the development, regulation and safe use of medicines [Internet]. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2022. Available from: https://cioms.ch/publications/product/patient-involvement/

European Medicines Agency. Principles on the involvement of young patients/consumers within EMA activities [Internet]. 2017 May. Report No.: EMA/494077/2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/principles-involvement-young-patientsconsumers-within-ema-activities_en.pdf

European Medicines Agency. Engagement Framework: EMA and patients, consumers and their organisations [Internet]. EMA; 2022 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/system/files/documents/other/updated_engagement_framework_-_ema_and_patients_consumers_and_their_organisations_2022-en.pdf

Bertelsen N, Dewulf L, Ferrè S, Vermeulen R, Schroeder K, Gatellier L, et al. Patient engagement and patient experience data in regulatory review and health technology assessment: a global landscape review. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2024;58:63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00573-7 .

James J. Health policy brief: patient engagement. Health Aff. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1377/hpb20130214.898775/full/healthpolicybrief_86.pdf .

Article   Google Scholar  

Wong-Rieger D. Moving from patient advocacy to partnership: a long and bumpy road. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10:271–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0216-1 .

Marie-Pascale Pomey and Paule Lebel. Patient Engagement: The Quebec Path*. Healthc Pap [Internet]. 2016;16:80–5. Available from: https://www.longwoods.com/content/24998/patient-engagement-the-quebec-path -

Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health – a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Res Pract. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3222211 .

Scilife. Life Sciences Industry: Complete Definition and Examples [Internet]. Life Sci. Ind. Complete Defin. Ex. 2023 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.scilife.io/glossary/life-science

Yeoman G, Furlong P, Seres M, Binder H, Chung H, Garzya V, et al. Defining patient centricity with patients for patients and caregivers: a collaborative endeavour. BMJ Innov. 2017;3:76–83. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000157 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilson H, Dashiell-Aje E, Anatchkova M, Coyne K, Hareendran A, Leidy NK, et al. Beyond study participants: a framework for engaging patients in the selection or development of clinical outcome assessments for evaluating the benefits of treatment in medical product development. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1577-6 .

Weston AD, Hood L. Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res. 2004;3:179–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr0499693 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Boffetta P, Collatuzzo G. Application of P4 (predictive, preventive, personalized, participatory) approach to occupational medicine. Med Lav Work Environ Health. 2022;113:e2022009. https://doi.org/10.2349/mdl.v113i1.12622 .

Gorbenko O, Cavillon P, Giles RH, Kolarova T, Marks M, Cardone A, et al. Co-creating with patients an impact framework across the medicine’s life cycle: a qualitative study exploring patients’ experiences of involvement in and perceptions of impact measures. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00334-0 .

Bauman AE, Fardy HJ, Harris PG. Getting it right: why bother with patient-centred care? Med J Aust. 2003;179:253–6. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05532.x .

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 .

Malfait S, Van Hecke A, De Bodt G, Palsterman N, Eeckloo K. Patient and public involvement in hospital policy-making: Identifying key elements for effective participation. Health Policy. 2018;122:380–8.

Ryll B. 12/52: The difference between patients and patient advocates [Internet]. 1252 Differ. Patients Patient Advocates. 2022 [cited 2024 Feb 11]. Available from: https://www.mpneurope.org/post/12-52-the-difference-between-patients-and-patient-advocates

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). A brief guide to public involvement in funding applications [Internet]. Brief Guide Public Involv. Funding Appl. 2020 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/a-brief-guide-to-public-involvement-in-funding-applications/24162

Auwal FI, Copeland C, Clark EJ, Naraynassamy C, McClelland GR. A systematic review of models of patient engagement in the development and life cycle management of medicines. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28:103702.

Levitan B, Getz K, Eisenstein EL, Goldberg M, Harker M, Hesterlee S, et al. Assessing the financial value of patient engagement: a quantitative approach from CTTI’s patient groups and clinical trials project. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52:220–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716715 .

Klingmann I, Heckenberg A, Warner K, Haerry D, Hunter A, May M, et al. EUPATI and patients in medicines research and development: guidance for patient involvement in ethical review of clinical trials. Front Med. 2018;5:251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00251/full .

Preston J, Biglino G, Harbottle V, Dalrymple E, Stalford H, Beresford MW. Reporting involvement activities with children and young people in paediatric research: a framework analysis. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00477-8 .

Dews S-A, Bassi A, Buckland S, Clements L, Daley R, Davies A, et al. Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e071339.

Vat LE, Finlay T, Robinson P, Barbareschi G, Boudes M, Diaz Ponce AM, et al. Evaluation of patient engagement in medicine development: a multi-stakeholder framework with metrics. Health Expect. 2021;24:491–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13191 .

Fruytier S, Vat LE, Camp R, Houÿez F, Keyser HD, Dunne D, et al. Monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement in health product research and development: co-creating a framework for community advisory boards. J Patient-Centered Res Rev. 2022;9:46–57.

L’Espérance A, O’Brien N, Grégoire A, Abelson J, Canfield C, Del Grande C, et al. Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7:10.

Servier. Annual Report 2020/2021 [Internet]. Available from: https://servier.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/servier-annual-report-2020-21.pdf

Anderson M, Kimberly MK. On the path to a science of patient input. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6730 .

Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI). Presenting CTTI Recommendations: Effective Engagement with Patient Groups Around Clinical Trials [Internet]. CTTI. 2015 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://ctti-clinicaltrials.org/presenting-ctti-recommendations-effective-engagement-with-patient-groups-around-clinical-trials/

Patvocates. About Patvocates: Who we are [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.patvocates.net/about-patvocates/

Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). IMI Innovative Medicines Initiative [Internet]. Eur. Patients Acad. Ther. Innov. Summ. 2017 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: http://www.imi.europa.eu/projects-results/project-factsheets/eupati

EUPATI. Email correspondence: Number of qualified EUPATI Fellows. 2023.

European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation. EUPATI Annual Report 2023. 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 15]; Available from: https://eupati.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/EUPATI-Annual-Report-2023-7.pdf

Patient Focused Medicines Development. Patient Engagement Quality Guidance v 2.0 [Internet]. PFMD; 2018 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://patientfocusedmedicine.org/peqg/patient-engagement-quality-guidance.pdf

Deane K, Delbecque L, Gorbenko O, Hamoir AM, Hoos A, Nafria B, et al. Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initiative. BMJ Innov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2018-000317 .

Richards DP, Cobey KD, Proulx L, Dawson S, de Wit M, Toupin-April K. Identifying potential barriers and solutions to patient partner compensation (payment) in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8:7.

Servier, BioLabs Global. Press release: Servier and BioLabs call for applications to join Spartners, the integrated incubator within the future Servier Research and Development Institute in Paris-Saclay [Internet]. Servier and BioLabs Global, media departments; 2022 [cited 2024 Feb 1]. Available from: https://servier.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/servier-biolabs-application-spartners_PR.pdf

Servier. Servier Integrated Annual Report 2021/2022 [Internet]. Available from: https://servier.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/servier-integrated-annual-report-2021-22.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

With their consent, we wish to acknowledge and thank all who contributed to this case study. Patient experts who have served on the Servier Saclay R&D Patient Expert Board were: Veerle Aertsen; Ana Amariutei; Richard Ballerand; Koen Block; Graham Brown; Catherine Cerisey; Marc van Grieken; Sabrina Grigolo; Tamara Hussong Milagre; Estelle Jobson; Robert Joyce; Anita Kienesberger; Begoña Nafría Escalera; Thomas Smith; Oriana Sousa; Gilliosa Spurrier; Linda Stone; and Janet West. Tamás Bereczky provided valuable input; and additionally for their guidance, support, and project management, we express our warm thanks to Patvocates staff, Jan Geissler, Hamda Munawar, and Linda Silva. Many members of the Servier staff also supported and participated in this collaboration.

This study was sponsored by Servier.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

EUPATI Fellow, Nyon, Switzerland

Estelle Jobson

Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Madrid, Spain

Marta Garcia & Laura Risueño

Patvocates, Munich, Germany

Danika Sharek & Jan Geissler

Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Paris, France

Sylvain Arnould & Aude Lemoine-André

EUPATI Fellow, Munich, Germany

Ana Amariutei

EUPATI Fellow, Trofarello, Italy

Sabrina Grigolo

Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain

Begonya Nafria Escalera

EUPATI Fellow, Marske, UK

Thomas Smith

EUPATI Fellow, Leiria, Portugal

Oriana Sousa

Sjögren’s UK (Previously British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), Birmingham, UK

Linda Stone

Independent Patient Expert, Hampshire, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Corresponding authors (EJ and MG): Estelle Jobson: EJ’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft, Substantial contributions, Data analysis, Data collection, Literature review, Writing and revision, Preparing figures and tables, Copy-editing and proofreading, and approved the submitted version and is/are accountable for their own contributions. Marta Garcia: MG’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft, Substantial contributions, Data analysis, Data collection, Literature review, Writing and revision, Preparing figures and tables and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Life sciences company authors (LR, SA, AL): Laura Risueño: LR’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft, Substantial contribution, Preparing figures and tables, Literature review, Writing and revision, and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Sylvain Arnould: SA’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft, Substantial contribution, Literature review, Writing and revision and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Aude Lemoine-André: AL’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Patient consultancy authors (DS and JG): Danika Sharek: DS’s contributions to the manuscript were: Original draft, Substantial contributions, Literature review, Writing and revision and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Jan Geissler: JG’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Patient co-authors (AA, SG, BN, TS, OS, LS, JW) Ana Amariutei: AA's contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Proofreading and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Sabrina Grigolo: SG’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Suggesting peer reviewer and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Begonya Nafria Escalera: BN’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Proofreading and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Thomas Smith: TS’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Proofreading and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Oriana Sousa: OS’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Suggesting peer reviewer, Proofreading and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Linda Stone: LS’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions. Janet West: JW’s contributions to the manuscript were: Revision, Proofreading and approved the submitted version and is accountable for their own contributions.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Estelle Jobson or Marta Garcia .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. This manuscript reports author experiences of a retrospective case study; no data collection was conducted as part of this case study. As such, ethical approval and consent to participate were not required. All authors of this study were members of the patient board described in the research or employees of the life sciences company, and no external participants were involved.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. All authors consent to be named accordingly. All people thanked in the Acknowledgements section consent to being acknowledged, too.

Competing interests

Some authors (SA, AL, LR, and GM) are full-time employees of Servier. No authors own Servier stocks. One author (JG) is CEO of the patient consultancy, Patvocates. One author (DS) is a part-time employee of Patvocates. One author (AA) is both a full-time employee of Patvocates and a member of the patient board. The co-corresponding author (EJ), and patient contributors (AA, SG, BN, TS, OS, LS, JW) are members of the Servier Saclay R&D Patient Expert Board, as described in the article, and their affiliation appears accordingly.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jobson, E., Garcia, M., Sharek, D. et al. Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 116 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00631-w

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 06 November 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00631-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]