Drawing Research Conclusions and Making Recommendations
A conclusion answers the research question using the study’s findings. Recommendations translate defensible implications into specific actions. Neither section should introduce new data, exaggerate causality or extend beyond the population and design.
Learning objectives
- Write concise conclusions aligned with objectives.
- Distinguish conclusions from results summaries.
- Develop specific, feasible and evidence-based recommendations.
- Assign recommendations to responsible stakeholders.
- Avoid unsupported generalisation and causal claims.
Building a conclusion
- Return to each objective or research question.
- Identify the principal finding, magnitude and direction.
- Account for uncertainty and important limitations.
- State the defensible answer in plain language.
- Finish with the overall contribution or implication.
Worked example
Finding: 39.4% of patients missed follow-up; longer travel time and medicine stock-outs were associated with missed visits.
Weak conclusion: Transport and stock-outs cause all poor adherence.
Defensible conclusion: Missed hypertension follow-up was common among participants at Facility X. Longer travel time and reported medicine stock-outs were associated with missed visits, although the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality. The findings identify potentially modifiable service and access barriers for prospective intervention testing.
Characteristics of strong recommendations
| Characteristic | Question |
|---|---|
| Evidence-linked | Which finding supports the action? |
| Specific | What exactly should be done? |
| Assigned | Who is responsible? |
| Feasible | Can it be implemented with available authority and resources? |
| Prioritised | Which action is most urgent or impactful? |
| Measurable | How will implementation and outcome be assessed? |
Stakeholder-based recommendations
Facility
Implement a documented stock-monitoring and appointment-reminder pilot, with monthly indicators.
District
Assess transport and outreach options for remote high-risk populations.
Researchers
Use a prospective or experimental design to test whether proposed interventions improve retention.
Community
Co-design acceptable communication and support approaches with patients and caregivers.
Recommendation matrix
| Finding | Action | Responsible party | Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequent stock-outs | Introduce minimum-stock alerts | Facility pharmacy and district stores | Stock-out days per month |
| Missed appointments | Pilot reminder messages | Clinic records team | Proportion attending within 7 days |
| Remote participants affected | Map outreach feasibility | District health office | Travel time and coverage |
Common errors
- Copying the abstract or repeating every numerical result.
- Introducing findings not presented in results.
- Claiming national relevance from one convenience sample.
- Making causal conclusions from cross-sectional associations.
- Recommending expensive programmes without feasibility evidence.
- Using vague phrases such as “government should sensitise people”.
- Recommending further research without specifying the remaining question and suitable design.
Prioritising recommendations
Consider likely health impact, urgency, evidence strength, equity, feasibility, acceptability, cost and responsible authority. Separate immediate low-resource actions from longer-term policy or research needs.
Final alignment check
- Every conclusion corresponds to an objective.
- Every recommendation follows from a finding or recognised uncertainty.
- Language respects the design and population.
- Limitations are reflected in certainty.
- Responsible actors and monitoring indicators are specified.
Review questions
- Rewrite an overstated causal conclusion.
- Develop three stakeholder-specific recommendations from a stock-out study.
- Differentiate a conclusion from a results summary.
- Create a recommendation matrix for low immunisation coverage.
References
- UAHEB. Research Proposal and Report Writing Guidelines.
- WHO. Health Research Methodology.
Educational content only; recommendations should be assessed with relevant stakeholders before implementation.
