Plan your research

What is evidence-based practice (EPB)?

EBP is the process of applying up-to-date research in conjunction with clinical expertise and patient values and choices, to ensure the best possible care. EPB therefore occurs at the intersection of evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preference. We locate the best evidence by asking a focused, clearly formulated question and using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and appraise research and data.

Why is EBP important?

• Keeps you up with new developments
• Assists with making informed clinical decisions based on quality evidence
• Helps incorporate research into practice
• Contributes to increased patient satisfaction.

Successful EBP hinges on access to high quality information. Research has shown that when clinicians have access to this information, patient care management is better informed 75% of the time, and when clinicians access these resources, 95% if their clinical decisions are better informed (Marshall, 2013).

Education and Training Opportunities

CIAP EBP Learning modules have been developed to support NSW Health clinicians gain skills to integrate the best available evidence into practice. Each learning module focuses on a different aspect of EBP. 

                

 Tips for developing a research question

• Start with an issue or gap you’ve noticed in your clinical area or service delivery. For example, a recurrent patient safety concern or inefficiency.
• Use the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) to clarify your question, especially for clinical research.
• Review existing literature using databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, or university libraries to see what research already exists and refine your idea. Book a Literature searching consultation with HNE Health Libraries if you need assistance with this.
• Ensure your idea aligns with HNE Health priorities, such as patient safety, Indigenous health, chronic disease management, or digital health.

Practical support

• Ask colleagues or mentors for feedback on your idea.
• Seek advice from the Research Office or clinical educators to ensure your idea is feasible within your context.

Why review types matter

Evidence synthesis means combining insights from multiple studies to answer a research question. It’s how researchers build reliable knowledge, not from one study but from many.

Choosing the right review type is essential because each has its own structure, purpose, and level of rigour. A systematic review, for instance, is designed to answer a tightly focused question with strict methodology and is often used in medical research. A scoping review, by contrast, maps out what research already exists in a field, which is ideal when you’re still defining your question. (Covidence Blog).

Type of Review	Description
Systematic Review	Systematic reviews are the best known type of review in certain fields. They aim for exhaustive, comprehensive searching and recommendations for practice. Characteristics include: Draw together and appraise published knowledge within a particular area or topic. Adhere to set guidelines for conduct. Requires peer-review before publication.
Scoping Review	Scoping reviews provide an ‘environmental scan’ (preliminary assessment) of the literature that is currently available in an area of research. Scoping reviews differ from mapping reviews as the outcome is only the review, not to conduct further reviews or research. Characteristics include: Be a quick search than can inform if a full review is needed. Systematic approach.
Literature Review	Characteristics include: Establish a theoretical framework for your topic / subject area. Define key terms, definitions and terminology. Identify studies, models, case studies etc supporting your topic. Define / establish your area of study, i.e. your research topic.
Integrative Review	Characteristics include: Generate or refine a theory or hypothesis. Combine empirical and theoretical research. Examine research on a given health phenomenon. Inform healthcare policy and practice.
Meta-Analysis	Meta-analysis provides statistical combination of the results of quantitative studies. They aim for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. Meta-analysis can be included in systematic reviews but note that not all systematic reviews contain a meta-analysis. Characteristics include: Able to draw together smaller studies to contribute to larger picture of impact. Time-efficient for decision makers, compared with reviewing individual studies.
Qualitative Review	Qualitative reviews are interpretative studies that can incorporate reports from users and observations from practitioners to allow for broader understanding than data-only would allow. Characteristics include: Allows for synthesis of non-statistical information. Can highlight themes across individual studies. Complements research evidence with reports from users and observations from practitioners.

Adapted from University of Newcastle, Systematic review guide

Systematic review

Systematic reviews identify areas of uncertainty and where little or no relevant research has been done and where new studies might be needed.

A systematic review is:

• An authoritative account of the existing evidence using reliable, objective, thorough and reproducible research practices.
• A method of making sense of large bodies of information and assists in determining what works and what doesn’t in healthcare.
  
  

It’s a good idea to familiarise yourself with the systematic review process before beginning your review. You can do this by searching for other systematic reviews to look at as examples and by learning how to distinguish between types of reviews.

What are systematic reviews? (Cochrane video)

Other review types

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L. and Booth, A. (2019), Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 36: 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276

Systematic review types: meet the family (Covidence)

Literature review

A literature review summarises, interprets, and critically evaluates the literature to establish current knowledge of a subject.

Both review types synthesise evidence and provide a summary of information. The key difference lies in the methodology. Systematic review methods are transparent and reproducible, designed to minimise bias. Unlike systematic reviews, the methods are generally not predefined and are not described in detail in the review. The search may be comprehensive but is not designed to be exhaustive.

How does a Systematic Review differ from a literature review?

Action items

• Complete the Systematic Review Course (HETI)
• Request a synthesis review
• Request a literature search

Why a protocol matters

A protocol is the document that outlines the study plan for a clinical research project. The study plan must be carefully designed to ensure it protects the health and safety of participants as well as answer a research question. It ensures the integrity of the research is preserved throughout the life of the study. 

Core protocol elements

Different study designs require different protocols.

Background

• Analysis of previous literature and studies
• Rationale of the project

Aim

• Research question
• Objectives

Plan of investigation

• Study design
• Description of the study population and study groups
• Sequence of procedures
• Variables to be measured and measurement methods
• Planned statistical analyses

When you will need one

A protocol is a mandatory component of a Human Research Ethics Application and is required for most grant applications.

Where to get support

• Request research support from the Library
• Submit a synthesis review service request

Storing and managing data appropriately during the research process ensures that it can be easily shared, re-used or reproduced.

What counts as research data? 

• Excel spreadsheets
• Specimens and samples
• Survey responses
• Hard-copy documents and notebooks
• Photos, video and audio recordings
• Interview transcripts
• Data files

Planning questions for data management

• How will the data be securely stored, for the duration and after completion of the project?
• How will data files be named and organised?
• How will the collected data be analysed and interrogated?
• How will findings be shared at the conclusion of the project?
• Do data management practices adhere to legislation, organisational rules and policies?

More information is available in the University of Newcastle's Data Management planning guide.

Indigenous data Data that involves Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has many legal and ethical considerations and must be managed and shared with care. Please see guidance from the ARDC (Australian Research Data Commons). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), acknowledge the crucial role of data in advancing indigenous innovation and self-determination. Research undertaken at Hunter New England Local Health District (HNELHD) must comply with HNELHD policies, procedures, and guidelines. Access Resources for Researchers compiled by the HNELHD Research Office or contact the Research Office. Management of data and information in research: A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research supports the implementation of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018).

 

Education and training

Johns Hopkins Libraries: DMPTool modules. Quick and free to access.

Coursera: Introduction to Data Management Plans – prepared by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Edinburgh. Free online lessons.

All research projects undertaken at HNELHD must be approved by the Hunter New England Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Find out more about HNELHD Research Ethics. 

Research Governance is a framework through which institutions are accountable for the research they authorise to be conducted at their site. Find out more about HNELHD Research Governance here. 

Useful resources

The below National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines apply to all research in Australia

• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2023)
• Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

The below guidance is aimed at the ethical conduct of clinical trials

• Australian Clinical Trial Handbook
• Therapeutic Goods Administration – Clinical Trials
• ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice

Consumers and Community involvement in research ensures

• Research responds to the recognised needs of those affected by health conditions and or receiving care and support from health services
• Research outcomes are accessible understandable and add value
• Research outcomes are more likely to be incorporated into everyday practice.

Useful resources

• NSW Regional Health Partners – Involving Consumers Resources
•  HNELHD – Research Office – Useful Resources
• NHMRC Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research
•  Australian Clinical Trials Alliance – Consumer Involvement & Engagement Toolkit.

When conducting indigenous research, you need to understand and acknowledge any cultural and ethical considerations and conduct your research with integrity.

Useful resources

• HNELHD Aboriginal Health Research
• NSW Health and Medical Research – Research engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research
• Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council of NSW
• NHMRC Building a Healthy Australia - Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities
• NHMRC Keeping Research On Track II
• Policy reform and research - Aboriginal Affairs NSW

The HNELHD Research Office coordinates a range of grant opportunities available to HNELHD staff. 

HNELHD Research Office – Research Development: Grants, Education, Training and Awards
University of Newcastle – Grants and funding

External sources

Look for grants from national bodies such as:

• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
• Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF)
• Australian Research Council (ARC)

Useful resources

• Preparing a grant application – Grants Hub Resources
• Wisdom, Jennifer P. PhD, MPH; Riley, Halley MPH; Myers, Neely PhD. Recommendations for Writing Successful Grant Proposals: An Information Synthesis. Academic Medicine 90(12):p 1720-1725, December 2015. | DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000811