research on limitations

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Limitations of the Study
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

How to present limitations in research

Last updated

30 January 2024

Reviewed by

Limitations don’t invalidate or diminish your results, but it’s best to acknowledge them. This will enable you to address any questions your study failed to answer because of them.

In this guide, learn how to recognize, present, and overcome limitations in research.

• What is a research limitation?

Research limitations are weaknesses in your research design or execution that may have impacted outcomes and conclusions. Uncovering limitations doesn’t necessarily indicate poor research design—it just means you encountered challenges you couldn’t have anticipated that limited your research efforts.

Does basic research have limitations?

Basic research aims to provide more information about your research topic. It requires the same standard research methodology and data collection efforts as any other research type, and it can also have limitations.

• Common research limitations

Researchers encounter common limitations when embarking on a study. Limitations can occur in relation to the methods you apply or the research process you design. They could also be connected to you as the researcher.

Methodology limitations

Not having access to data or reliable information can impact the methods used to facilitate your research. A lack of data or reliability may limit the parameters of your study area and the extent of your exploration.

Your sample size may also be affected because you won’t have any direction on how big or small it should be and who or what you should include. Having too few participants won’t adequately represent the population or groups of people needed to draw meaningful conclusions.

Research process limitations

The study’s design can impose constraints on the process. For example, as you’re conducting the research, issues may arise that don’t conform to the data collection methodology you developed. You may not realize until well into the process that you should have incorporated more specific questions or comprehensive experiments to generate the data you need to have confidence in your results.

Constraints on resources can also have an impact. Being limited on participants or participation incentives may limit your sample sizes. Insufficient tools, equipment, and materials to conduct a thorough study may also be a factor.

Common researcher limitations

Here are some of the common researcher limitations you may encounter:

Time: some research areas require multi-year longitudinal approaches, but you might not be able to dedicate that much time. Imagine you want to measure how much memory a person loses as they age. This may involve conducting multiple tests on a sample of participants over 20–30 years, which may be impossible.

Bias: researchers can consciously or unconsciously apply bias to their research. Biases can contribute to relying on research sources and methodologies that will only support your beliefs about the research you’re embarking on. You might also omit relevant issues or participants from the scope of your study because of your biases.

Limited access to data : you may need to pay to access specific databases or journals that would be helpful to your research process. You might also need to gain information from certain people or organizations but have limited access to them. These cases require readjusting your process and explaining why your findings are still reliable.

• Why is it important to identify limitations?

Identifying limitations adds credibility to research and provides a deeper understanding of how you arrived at your conclusions.

Constraints may have prevented you from collecting specific data or information you hoped would prove or disprove your hypothesis or provide a more comprehensive understanding of your research topic.

However, identifying the limitations contributing to your conclusions can inspire further research efforts that help gather more substantial information and data.

• Where to put limitations in a research paper

A research paper is broken up into different sections that appear in the following order:

Introduction

Methodology

The discussion portion of your paper explores your findings and puts them in the context of the overall research. Either place research limitations at the beginning of the discussion section before the analysis of your findings or at the end of the section to indicate that further research needs to be pursued.

What not to include in the limitations section

Evidence that doesn’t support your hypothesis is not a limitation, so you shouldn’t include it in the limitation section. Don’t just list limitations and their degree of severity without further explanation.

• How to present limitations

You’ll want to present the limitations of your study in a way that doesn’t diminish the validity of your research and leave the reader wondering if your results and conclusions have been compromised.

Include only the limitations that directly relate to and impact how you addressed your research questions. Following a specific format enables the reader to develop an understanding of the weaknesses within the context of your findings without doubting the quality and integrity of your research.

Identify the limitations specific to your study

You don’t have to identify every possible limitation that might have occurred during your research process. Only identify those that may have influenced the quality of your findings and your ability to answer your research question.

Explain study limitations in detail

This explanation should be the most significant portion of your limitation section.

Link each limitation with an interpretation and appraisal of their impact on the study. You’ll have to evaluate and explain whether the error, method, or validity issues influenced the study’s outcome and how.

Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives

In this section, suggest how researchers can avoid the pitfalls you experienced during your research process.

If an issue with methodology was a limitation, propose alternate methods that may help with a smoother and more conclusive research project. Discuss the pros and cons of your alternate recommendation.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

You probably took steps to try to address or mitigate limitations when you noticed them throughout the course of your research project. Describe these steps in the limitation section.

• Limitation example

“Approaches like stem cell transplantation and vaccination in AD [Alzheimer’s disease] work on a cellular or molecular level in the laboratory. However, translation into clinical settings will remain a challenge for the next decade.”

The authors are saying that even though these methods showed promise in helping people with memory loss when conducted in the lab (in other words, using animal studies), more studies are needed. These may be controlled clinical trials, for example. 

However, the short life span of stem cells outside the lab and the vaccination’s severe inflammatory side effects are limitations. Researchers won’t be able to conduct clinical trials until these issues are overcome.

• How to overcome limitations in research

You’ve already started on the road to overcoming limitations in research by acknowledging that they exist. However, you need to ensure readers don’t mistake weaknesses for errors within your research design.

To do this, you’ll need to justify and explain your rationale for the methods, research design, and analysis tools you chose and how you noticed they may have presented limitations.

Your readers need to know that even when limitations presented themselves, you followed best practices and the ethical standards of your field. You didn’t violate any rules and regulations during your research process.

You’ll also want to reinforce the validity of your conclusions and results with multiple sources, methods, and perspectives. This prevents readers from assuming your findings were derived from a single or biased source.

• Learning and improving starts with limitations in research

Dealing with limitations with transparency and integrity helps identify areas for future improvements and developments. It’s a learning process, providing valuable insights into how you can improve methodologies, expand sample sizes, or explore alternate approaches to further support the validity of your findings.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

What are the limitations in research and how to write them?

Learn about the potential limitations in research and how to appropriately address them in order to deliver honest and ethical research.

It is fairly uncommon for researchers to stumble into the term research limitations when working on their research paper. Limitations in research can arise owing to constraints on design, methods, materials, and so on, and these aspects, unfortunately, may have an influence on your subject’s findings.

In this Mind The Graph’s article, we’ll discuss some recommendations for writing limitations in research , provide examples of various common types of limitations, and suggest how to properly present this information.

What are the limitations in research?

The limitations in research are the constraints in design, methods or even researchers’ limitations that affect and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity both internally and externally. 

Researchers are usually cautious to acknowledge the limitations of their research in their publications for fear of undermining the research’s scientific validity. No research is faultless or covers every possible angle. As a result, addressing the constraints of your research exhibits honesty and integrity .

Why should include limitations of research in my paper?

Though limitations tackle potential flaws in research, commenting on them at the conclusion of your paper, by demonstrating that you are aware of these limitations and explaining how they impact the conclusions that may be taken from the research, improves your research by disclosing any issues before other researchers or reviewers do . 

Additionally, emphasizing research constraints implies that you have thoroughly investigated the ramifications of research shortcomings and have a thorough understanding of your research problem. 

Limits exist in any research; being honest about them and explaining them would impress researchers and reviewers more than disregarding them. 

Remember that acknowledging a research’s shortcomings offers a chance to provide ideas for future research, but be careful to describe how your study may help to concentrate on these outstanding problems.

Possible limitations examples

Here are some limitations connected to methodology and the research procedure that you may need to explain and discuss in connection to your findings.

Methodological limitations

Sample size.

The number of units of analysis used in your study is determined by the sort of research issue being investigated. It is important to note that if your sample is too small, finding significant connections in the data will be challenging, as statistical tests typically require a larger sample size to ensure a fair representation and this can be limiting. 

Lack of available or reliable data

A lack of data or trustworthy data will almost certainly necessitate limiting the scope of your research or the size of your sample, or it can be a substantial impediment to identifying a pattern and a relevant connection.

Lack of prior research on the subject

Citing previous research papers forms the basis of your literature review and aids in comprehending the research subject you are researching. Yet there may be little if any, past research on your issue.

The measure used to collect data

After finishing your analysis of the findings, you realize that the method you used to collect data limited your capacity to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the findings. Recognize the flaw by mentioning that future researchers should change the specific approach for data collection.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling inaccuracies arise when a probability sampling method is employed to choose a sample, but that sample does not accurately represent the overall population or the relevant group. As a result, your study suffers from “sampling bias” or “selection bias.”

Limitations of the research

When your research requires polling certain persons or a specific group, you may have encountered the issue of limited access to these interviewees. Because of the limited access, you may need to reorganize or rearrange your research. In this scenario, explain why access is restricted and ensure that your findings are still trustworthy and valid despite the constraint.

Time constraints

Practical difficulties may limit the amount of time available to explore a research issue and monitor changes as they occur. If time restrictions have any detrimental influence on your research, recognize this impact by expressing the necessity for a future investigation.

Due to their cultural origins or opinions on observed events, researchers may carry biased opinions, which can influence the credibility of a research. Furthermore, researchers may exhibit biases toward data and conclusions that only support their hypotheses or arguments.

The structure of the limitations section 

The limitations of your research are usually stated at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so that the reader is aware of and comprehends the limitations prior to actually reading the rest of your findings, or they are stated at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

The ideal way is to divide your limitations section into three steps: 

1. Identify the research constraints; 

2. Describe in great detail how they affect your research; 

3. Mention the opportunity for future investigations and give possibilities. 

By following this method while addressing the constraints of your research, you will be able to effectively highlight your research’s shortcomings without jeopardizing the quality and integrity of your research.

Present your research or paper in an innovative way

If you want your readers to be engaged and participate in your research, try Mind The Graph tool to add visual assets to your content. Infographics may improve comprehension and are easy to read, just as the Mind The Graph tool is simple to use and offers a variety of templates from which you can select the one that best suits your information.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Research Limitations: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on a research journey is an exciting endeavor, but every study has its boundaries and constraints. Understanding and transparently acknowledging these limitations is a crucial aspect of scholarly work. In this guide, we'll explore the concept of research limitations, why they matter, and how to effectively address and navigate them in your academic endeavors.

1. Defining Research Limitations:

• Definition: Research limitations are the constraints or shortcomings that affect the scope, applicability, and generalizability of a study.
• Inherent in Research: Every research project, regardless of its scale or significance, possesses limitations.

2. Types of Research Limitations:

• Methodological Limitations: Constraints related to the research design, data collection methods, or analytical techniques.
• Sampling Limitations: Issues associated with the representativeness or size of the study sample.
• Contextual Limitations: Restrictions stemming from the specific time, place, or cultural context of the study.
• Resource Limitations: Constraints related to time, budget, or access to necessary resources.

3. Why Acknowledge Limitations?

• Transparency: Acknowledging limitations demonstrates transparency and honesty in your research.
• Robustness of Findings: Recognizing limitations adds nuance to your findings, making them more robust.
• Future Research Directions: Addressing limitations provides a foundation for future researchers to build upon.

4. Identifying Research Limitations:

• Reflect on Methodology: Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your research design, data collection methods, and analysis.
• Examine Sample Characteristics: Evaluate the representativeness and size of your study sample.
• Consider External Factors: Assess external factors that may impact the generalizability of your findings.

5. How to Address Limitations:

• In the Methodology Section: Clearly articulate limitations in the methodology section of your research paper.
• Offer Solutions: If possible, propose ways to mitigate or address identified limitations.
• Future Research Suggestions: Use limitations as a springboard to suggest areas for future research.

6. Common Phrases to Express Limitations:

• "This study is not without limitations."
• "One limitation of our research is..."
• "It is important to acknowledge the constraints of this study, including..."

7. Examples of Addressing Limitations:

• Example 1 (Methodological): "While our survey provided valuable insights, the reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of response bias."
• Example 2 (Sampling): "The small sample size of our study limits the generalizability of our findings to a broader population."
• Example 3 (Resource): "Due to budget constraints, our research was limited to a single geographical location, potentially impacting the external validity."

8. Balancing Strengths and Limitations:

• Emphasize Contributions: Highlight the contributions and strengths of your research alongside the limitations.
• Maintain a Positive Tone: Discuss limitations objectively without undermining the significance of your study.

9. Feedback and Peer Review:

• Seek Feedback: Share your research with peers or mentors to gain valuable insights.
• Peer Review: Embrace the feedback received during the peer-review process to enhance the robustness of your work.

10. Continuous Reflection:

• Throughout the Research Process: Continuously reflect on potential limitations during the entire research process.
• Adjust as Needed: Be willing to adjust your approach as you encounter unforeseen challenges.

Conclusion:

Understanding and effectively addressing research limitations is a hallmark of rigorous and responsible scholarship. By openly acknowledging these constraints, you not only enhance the credibility of your work but also contribute to the broader academic discourse. Embrace the nuances of your research journey, navigate its limitations thoughtfully, and pave the way for future investigations.

Related Guides

• Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism
• How to select the right research topic? : A Step-by-Step Guide
• The Art of Wringing a Research Conclusion
• Analyze and Discuss Your Research Findings Like a Pro
• What is Plagiarism? : Types, Examples and How to Avoid it
• How to Write a Thesis Statement?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.28(1); Jan-Mar 2024
• PMC10882193

Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning

Douglas e. ott.

Mercer University, Macon, Georgia, USA.

Background:

As the number of limitations increases in a medical research article, their consequences multiply and the validity of findings decreases. How often do limitations occur in a medical article? What are the implications of limitation interaction? How often are the conclusions hedged in their explanation?

To identify the number, type, and frequency of limitations and words used to describe conclusion(s) in medical research articles.

Search, analysis, and evaluation of open access research articles from 2021 and 2022 from the Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery and 2022 Surgical Endoscopy for type(s) of limitation(s) admitted to by author(s) and the number of times they occurred. Limitations not admitted to were found, obvious, and not claimed. An automated text analysis was performed for hedging words in conclusion statements. A limitation index score is proposed to gauge the validity of statements and conclusions as the number of limitations increases.

A total of 298 articles were reviewed and analyzed, finding 1,764 limitations. Four articles had no limitations. The average was between 3.7% and 6.9% per article. Hedging, weasel words and words of estimative probability description was found in 95.6% of the conclusions.

Conclusions:

Limitations and their number matter. The greater the number of limitations and ramifications of their effects, the more outcomes and conclusions are affected. Wording ambiguity using hedging or weasel words shows that limitations affect the uncertainty of claims. The limitation index scoring method shows the diminished validity of finding(s) and conclusion(s).

INTRODUCTION

As the number of limitations in a medical research article increases, does their influence have a more significant effect than each one considered separately, making the findings and conclusions less reliable and valid? Limitations are known variables that influence data collection and findings and compromise outcomes, conclusions, and inferences. A large body of work recognizes the effect(s) and consequence(s) of limitations. 1 – 77 Other than the ones known to the author(s), unknown and unrecognized limitations influence research credibility. This study and analysis aim to determine how frequently and what limitations are found in peer-reviewed open-access medical articles for laparoscopic/endoscopic surgeons.

This research is about limitations, how often they occur and explained and/or justified. Failure to disclose limitations in medical writing limits proper decision-making and understanding of the material presented. All articles have limitations and constraints. Not acknowledging limitations is a lack of candor, ignorance, or a deliberate omission. To reduce the suspicion of invalid conclusions limitations and their effects must be acknowledged and explained. This allows for a clearer more focused assessment of the article’s subject matter without explaining its findings and conclusions using hedging and words of estimative probability. 78 , 79

An evaluation of open access research/meta-analysis/case series/methodologies/review articles published in the Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic and Robotic Surgery ( JSLS ) for 2021 and 2022 (129) and commentary/guidelines/new technology/practice guidelines/review/SAGES Masters Program articles in Surgical Endoscopy ( Surg Endosc ) for 2022 (169) totaling 298 were read and evaluated by automated text analysis for limitations admitted to by the paper’s authors using such words as “limitations,” “limits,” “shortcomings,” “inadequacies,” “flaws,” “weaknesses,” “constraints,” “deficiencies,” “problems,” and “drawbacks” in the search. Limitations not mentioned were found by reading the paper and assigning type and frequency. The number of hedging and weasel words used to describe the conclusion or validate findings was determined by reading the article and adding them up.

For JSLS , there were 129 articles having 63 different types of limitations. Authors claimed 476, and an additional 32 were found within the article, totaling 508 limitations (93.7% admitted to and 6.3% discovered that were not mentioned). This was a 3.9 limitation average per article. No article said it was free of limitations. The ten most frequent limitations and their rate of occurrence are in Table 1 . The total number of limitations, frequency, and visual depictions are seen in Figures 1A and ​ and 1B 1B .

( A ) Visual depiction of the ranked frequency of limitations for JSLS articles reviewed.

The Ten Most Frequent Limitations Found in JSLS and Surg Endosc Articles

There were 169 articles for Surg Endosc , with 78 different named limitations the authors claimed for a total of 1,162. An additional 94 limitations were found in the articles, totaling 1,256, or 7.4 per article. The authors explicitly stated 92.5% of the limitations, and an additional 7.5% of additional limitations were found within the article. Five claimed zero limitations (5/169 = 3%). The ten most frequent limitations and their rate of occurrence are in Table 1 . The total number of limitations and frequency is shown in Figures 1A and ​ and 1B 1B .

Conclusions were described in hedged, weasel words or words of estimative probability 95.6% of the time (285/298).

A research hypothesis aims to test the idea about expected relationships between variables or to explain an occurrence. The assessment of a hypothesis with limitations embedded in the method reaches a conclusion that is inherently flawed. What is compromised by the limitation(s)? The result is an inferential study in the presence of uncertainty. As the number of limitations increases, the validity of information decreases due to the proliferation of uncertain information. Information gathered and conclusions made in the presence of limitations can be functionally unsound. Hypothesis testing of spurious conditions with limitations and then claiming a conclusion is not a reliable method for generating factual evidence. The authors’ reliance on limitation gathered “evidence” data and asserting that this is valid is spurious reasoning. The bridge between theory and evidence is not through limitations that unquestionably accept findings. A range of conclusion possibilities exists being some percent closer to either more correct or incorrect. Relying on leveraging the pursuit of “fact” in the presence of limitations as the safeguard is akin to the fox watching the hen house. Acknowledgment of the uncertainty limitations create in research and discounting the finding’s reliability would give more credibility to the effort. Shortcomings and widespread misuses of research limitation justifications make findings suspect and falsely justified in many instances.

The JSLS instructions to authors say that in the discussion section of the paper the author(s) must “Comment on any methodological weaknesses of the study” ( http://jsls.sls.org/guidelines-for-authors/ ). In their instructions for authors, Surg Endosc says that in the discussion of the paper, “A paragraph discussing study limitations is required” ( https://www.springer.com/journal/464/submission-guidelines ). A comment for a written article about a limitation should express an opinion or reaction. A paragraph discussing limitations, especially, if there is more than one, requires just that: a paragraph and discussion. These requirements were not met or enforced by JSLS 86% (111/129) of the time and 92.3% (156/169) for Surg Endosc . This is an error in peer reviewing, not adhering to established research publication best practices, and the journals needing to adhere to their guidelines. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, uniform requirements for manuscripts recommends that authors “State the limitations of your study, and explore the implications of your findings for future research and for clinical practice or policy. Discuss the influence or association of variables, such as sex and/or gender, on your findings, where appropriate, and the limitations of the data.” It also says, “describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations” and “Include in the Discussion section the implications of the findings and their limitations, including implications for future research” and “give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations.” 65 “Reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, 1 ARRIVE 2 ) have been proposed to promote the transparency and accuracy of reporting for biomedical studies, and they often include discussion of limitations as a checklist item. Although such guidelines have been endorsed by high-profile biomedical journals, and compliance with them is associated with improved reporting quality, 3 adherence remains suboptimal.” 4 , 5

Limitations start in the methodologic design phase of research. They require troubleshooting evaluations from the start to consider what limitations exist, what is known and unknown, where, and how to overcome them, and how they will affect the reasonableness and assessment of possible conclusions. A named limitation represents a category with numerous components. Each factor has a unique effect on findings and collectively influences conclusion assessment. Even a single limitation can compromise the study’s implementation and adversely influence research parameters, resulting in diminished value of the findings, outcomes, and conclusions. This becomes more problematic as the number of limitations and their components increase. Any limitation influences a research paper. It is unknown how much and to what extent any limitation affects other limitations, but it does create a cascading domino effect of ever-increasing interactions that compromise findings and conclusions. Considering “research” as a system, it has sensitivity and initial conditions (methodology, data collection, analysis, etc.). The slightest alteration of a study due to limitations can profoundly impact all aspects of the study. The presence and influence of limitations introduce a range of unpredictable influences on findings, results, and conclusions.

Researchers and readers need to pay attention to and discount the effects limitations have on the validity of findings. Richard Feynman said in “Cargo cult science” “the first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” 73 We strongly believe our own nonsense or wrong-headed reasoning. Buddhist philosophers say we are attached to our ignorance. Researchers are not critical enough about how they fool themselves regarding their findings with known limitations and then pass them on to readers. The competence of findings with known limitations results in suspect conclusions.

Authors should not ask for dismissal, disregard, or indulgence of their limitations. They should be thoughtful and reflective about the implications and uncertainty the limitations create 67 ; their uncertainties, blind spots, and impact on the research’s relevance. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the limitation, explain its effect, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This was largely absent from the articles reviewed.

Authors use synonyms and phrases describing limitations that hide, deflect, downplay, and divert attention from them, i.e., some drawbacks of the study are …, weaknesses of the study are…, shortcomings are…, and disadvantages of the study are…. They then say their finding(s) lack(s) generalizability, meaning the findings only apply to the study participants or that care, sometimes extreme, must be taken in interpreting the results. Which limitation components are they referring to? Are the authors aware of the extent of their limitations, or are they using convenient phrases to highlight the existence of limitations without detailing their defects?

Limitations negatively weigh on both data and conclusions yet no literature exists to provide a quantifiable measure of this effect. The only acknowledgment is that limitations affect research data and conclusions. The adverse effects of limitations are both specific and contextual to each research article and is part of the parameters that affect research. All the limitations are expressed in words, excuses, and a litany of mea culpas asking for forgiveness and without explaining the extent or magnitude of their impact. It is left to the writer and reader to figure out. It is not known what value writers put on their limitations in the 298 articles reviewed from JSLS and Surg Endosc . Listing limitations without comment and effect on the findings and conclusions is a compromising red flag. Therefore, a limitation scoring method was developed and is proposed to assess the level of suspicion generated by the number of limitations.

It is doubtful that a medical research article is so well designed and executed that there are no limitations. This is doubtful since there are unknown unknowns. This study showed that authors need to acknowledge all the limitations when they are known. They acknowledge the ones they know but do not consider other possibilities. There are the known known limitations; the ones the author(s) are aware of and can be measured, some explained, most not. The known unknowns: limitations authors are aware of but cannot explain or quantify. The unknown unknown limitations: the ones authors are not aware of and have unknown influence(s), i.e., the things they do not know they do not know. These are blind spots (not knowing what they do not know or black swan events). And the unknown knowns; the limitations authors may be aware of but have not disclosed, thoroughly reported, understood, or addressed. They are unexpected and not considered. See Table 2 . 74

Limitations of Known and Unknowns as They Apply to Limitations

It is possible that authors did not identify, want to identify, or acknowledge potential limitations or were unaware of what limitations existed. Cumulative complexity is the result of the presence of multiple limitations because of the accumulation and interaction of limitations and their components. Just mentioning a limitation category and not the specific parts that are the limitation(s) is not enough. Authors telling readers of their known research limitations is a caution to discount the findings and conclusions. At what point does the caution for each limitation, its ramifications, and consequences become a warning? When does the piling up of mistakes, bad and missing data, biases, small sample size, lack of generalizability, confounding factors, etc., reach a point when the findings become s uninterpretable and meaningless? “Caution” indicates a level of potential hazard; a warning is more dire and consequential. Authors use the word “caution” not “warning” to describe their conclusions. There is a point when the number of limitations and their cumulative effects surpasses the point where a caution statement is no longer applicable, and a warning statement is required. This is the reason for establishing a limitations risk score.

Limitations put medical research articles at risk. The accumulation of limitations (variables having additional limitation components) are gaps and flaws diluting the probability of validity. There is currently no assessment method for evaluating the effect(s) of limitations on research outcomes other than awareness that there is an effect. Authors make statements warning that their results may not be reliable or generalizable, and need more research and larger numbers. Just because the weight effect of any given limitation is not known, explained, or how it discounts findings does not negate a causation effect on data, its analysis, and conclusions. Limitation variables and the ramifications of their effects have consequences. The relationship is not zero effect and accumulates with each added limitation.

As a result of this research, a limitation index score (LIS) system and assessment tool were developed. This limitation risk assessment tool gives a scores assessment of the relative validity of conclusions in a medical article having limitations. The adoption of the LIS scoring assessment tool for authors, researchers, editors, reviewers, and readers is a step toward understanding the effects of limitations and their causal relationships to findings and conclusions. The objective is cleaner, tighter methodologies, and better data assessment, to achieve more reliable findings. Adjustments to research conclusions in the presence of limitations are necessary. The degree of modification depends on context. The cumulative effect of this burden must be acknowledged by a tangible reduction and questioning of the legitimacy of statements made under these circumstances. The description calculating the LIS score is detailed in Appendix 1 .

A limitation word or phrase is not one limitation; it is a group of limitations under the heading of that word or phrase having many additional possible components just as an individual named influence. For instance, when an admission of selection bias is noted, the authors do not explain if it was an exclusion criterion, self-selection, nonresponsiveness, lost to follow-up, recruitment error, how it affects external validity, lack of randomization, etc., or any of the least 263 types of known biases causing systematic distortions of the truth whether unintentional or wanton. 40 , 76 Which forms of selection bias are they identifying? 63 Limitations have branches that introduce additional limitations influencing the study’s ability to reach a useful conclusion. Authors rarely tell you the effect consequences and extent limitations have on their study, findings, and conclusions.

This is a sample of limitations and a few of their component variables under the rubric of a single word or phrase. See Table 3 .

A Limitation Word or Phrase is a Limitation Having Additional Components That Are Additional Limitations. When an Author Uses the Limitation Composite Word or Phrase, They Leave out Which One of Its Components is Contributory to the Research Limitations. Each Limitation Interacts with Other Limitations, Creating a Cluster of Cross Complexities of Data, Findings, and Conclusions That Are Tainted and Negatively Affect Findings and Conclusions

Limitations rarely occur alone. If you see one there are many you do not see or appreciate. Limitation s components interact with their own and other limitations, leading to complex connections interacting and discounting the reliability of findings. By how much is context dependent: but it is not zero. Limitations are variables influencing outcomes. As the number of limitations increases, the reliability of the conclusions decreases. How many variables (limitations) does it take to nullify the claims of the findings? The weight and influence of each limitation, its aggregate components, and interconnectedness have an unknown magnitude and effect. The result is a disorderly concoction of hearsay explanations. Table 4 is an example of just two single explanation limitations and some of their components illustrating the complex compounding of their effects on each other.

An Example of Interactions between Only Two Limitations and Some of Their Components Causes 16 Interactions

The novelty of this paper on limitations in medical science is not the identification of research article limitations or their number or frequency; it is the recognition of the multiplier effect(s) limitations and the influence they have on diminishing any conclusion(s) the paper makes. It is possible that limitations contribute to the inability of studies to replicate and why so many are one-time occurrences. Therefore, the generalizability statement that should be given to all readers is BEWARE THERE IS A REDUCTION EFFECT ON THE CONCLUSIONS IN THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE OF ITS LIMITATIONS.

Journals accept studies done with too many limitations, creating forking path situations resulting in an enormous number of possible associations of individual data points as multiple comparisons. 79 The result is confusion, a muddled mess caused by interactions of limitations undermining the ability to make valid inferences. Authors know and acknowledge but rarely explain them or their influence. They also use incomplete and biased databases, biased methods, small sample sizes, and not eliminating confounders, etc., but persist in doing research with these circumstances. Why is that? Is it because when limitations are acknowledged, authors feel justified in their conclusions? It wasn’t my poor research design; it was the limitation(s). How do peer reviewers score and analyze these papers without a method to discount the findings and conclusions in the presence of limitations? What are the calculus editors use to justify papers with multiple limitations, reaching compromised or spurious conclusions? How much caution or warning should a journal say must be taken in interpreting article results? How much? Which results? When? Under what circumstance(s)?

Since a critical component of research is its limitations, the quality and rigor of research are largely defined by, 75 these constraints making it imperative that limitations be exposed and explained. All studies have limitations admitted to or not, and these limitations influence outcomes and conclusions. Unfortunately, they are given insufficient attention, accompanied by feeble excuses, but they all matter. The degrees of freedom of each limitation influence every other limitation, magnifying their ramifications and confusion. Limitations of a scientific article must put the findings in context so the reader can judge the validity and strength of the conclusions. While authors acknowledge the limitations of their study, they influence its legitimacy.

Not only are limitations not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature, 8 but their implications, magnitude, and how they affect a conclusion are not explained or appreciated. Authors work at claiming their work and methods “overcome,” “avoid,” or “circumvent” limitations. Limitations are explained away as “Failure to prove a difference does not prove lack of a difference.” 60 Sample size, bias, confounders, bad data, etc. are not what they seem and do not sully the results. The implication is “trust me.” But that’s not science. Limitations create cognitive distortions and framing (misperception of reality) for the authors and readers. Data in studies with limitations is data having limitations. It was real but tainted.

Limitations are not a trivial aspect of research. It is a tangible something, positive or negative, put into a data set to be analyzed and used to reach a conclusion. How did these extra somethings, known unknowns, not knowns, and unknown knowns, affect the validity of the data set and conclusions? Research presented with the vagaries of explicit limitations is intensified by additional limitations and their component effects on top of the first limitation s , quickly diluting any conclusion making its dependability questionable.

This study’s analysis of limitations in medical articles averaged 3.9% per article for JSLS and 7.4% for Surg Endosc . Authors admit to some and are aware of limitations, but not all of them and discount or leave out others. Limitations were often presented with misleading and hedging language. Authors do not give weight or suggest the percent discount limitations have on the reliance of conclusion(s). Since limitations influence findings, reliability, generalizability, and validity without knowing the magnitude of each and their context, the best that can be said about the conclusions is that they are specific to the study described, context-driven, and suspect.

Limitations mean something is missing, added, incorrect, unseen, unaware of, fabricated, or unknown; circumstances that confuse, confound, and compromise findings and information to the extent that a notice is necessary. All medical articles should have this statement, “Any conclusion drawn from this medical study should be interpreted considering its limitations. Readers should exercise caution, use critical judgement, and consult other sources before accepting these findings. Findings may not be generalizable regardless of sample size, composition, representative data points, and subject groups. Methodologic, analytic, and data collection may have introduced biases or limitations that can affect the accuracy of the results. Controlling for confounding variables, known and unknown, may have influenced the data and/or observations. The accuracy and completeness of the data used to draw a conclusion may not be reliable. The study was specific to time, place, persons, and prevailing circumstances. The weight of each of these factors is unknown to us. Their effect may be limited or compounded and diminish the validity of the proposed conclusions.”

This study and findings are limited and constrained by the limitations of the articles reviewed. They have known and unknown limitations not accounted for, missing data, small sample size, incongruous populations, internal and external validity concerns, confounders, and more. See Tables 2 and ​ and 3 . 3 . Some of these are correctible by the author’s awareness of the consequences of limitations, making plans to address them in the methodology phase of hypothesis assessment and performance of the research to diminish their effects.

Limitations in research articles are expected, but they can be reduced in their effect so that conclusions are closer to being valid. Limitations introduce elements of ignorance and suspicion. They need to be explained so their influence on the believability of the study and its conclusions is closer to meeting construct, content, face, and criterion validity. As the number of limitations increases, common sense, skepticism, study component acceptability, and understanding the ramifications of each limitation are necessary to accept, discount, or reject the author’s findings. As the number of hedging and weasel words used to explain conclusion(s) increases, believability decreases, and raises suspicion regarding claims. Establishing a systematic limitation scoring index limitations for authors, editors, reviewers, and readers and recognizing their cumulative effects will result in a clearer understanding of research content and legitimacy.

How to calculate the Limitation Index Score (LIS). See Tables 5 – 5 . Each limitation admitted to by authors in the article equals (=) one (1) point. Limitations may be generally stated by the author as a broad category, but can have multiple components, such as a retrospective study with these limitation components: 1. data or recall not accurate, 2. data missing, 3. selection bias not controlled, 4. confounders not controlled, 5. no randomization, 6. no blinding, 7. difficult to establish cause and effect, and 8. cannot draw a conclusion of causation. For each component, no matter how many are not explained and corrected, add an additional one (1) point to the score. See Table 2 .

The Limitation Scoring Index is a Numeric Limitation Risk Assessment Score to Rank Risk Categories and Discounting Probability of Validity and Conclusions. The More Limitations in a Study, the Greater the Risk of Unreliable Findings and Conclusions

Limitations May Be Generally Stated by the Author but Have Multiple Components, Such as a Retrospective Study Having Disadvantage Components of 1. Data or Recall Not Accurate, 2. Data Missing, 3. Selection Bias Not Controlled, 4. Confounders Not Controlled, 5. No Randomization, 6. No Blinding, 7 Difficult to Establish Cause and Effect, 8. Results Are Hypothesis Generating, and 9. Cannot Draw a Conclusion of Causation. For Each Component, Not Explained and Corrected, Add an Additional One (1) Point Is Added to the Score. Extra Blanks Are for Additional Limitations

An Automatic 2 Points is Added for Meta-Analysis Studies Since They Have All the Retrospective Detrimental Components. 44 Data from Insurance, State, National, Medicare, and Medicaid, Because of Incorrect Coding, Over Reporting, and Under-Reporting, Etc. Each Component of the Limitation Adds One Additional Point. For Surveys and Questionnaires Add One Additional Point for Each Bias. Extra Blanks Are for Additional Limitations

Automatic Five (5) Points for Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database Articles. The FDA Access Data Site Says Submissions Can Be “Incomplete, Inaccurate, Untimely, Unverified, or Biased” and “the Incidence or Prevalence of an Event Cannot Be Determined from This Reporting System Alone Due to Under-Reporting of Events, Inaccuracies in Reports, Lack of Verification That the Device Caused the Reported Event, and Lack of Information” and “DR Data Alone Cannot Be Used to Establish Rates of Events, Evaluate a Change in Event Rates over Time or Compare Event Rates between Devices. The Number of Reports Cannot Be Interpreted or Used in Isolation to Reach Conclusions” 80

Total Limitation Index Score

Each limitation not admitted to = two (2) points. A meta-analysis study gets an automatic 2 points since they are retrospective and have detrimental components that should be added to the 2 points. Data from insurance, state, national, Medicare, and Medicaid, because of incorrect coding, over-reporting, and underreporting, etc., score 2 points, and each component adds one additional point. Surveys and questionnaires get 2 points, and add one additional point for each bias. See Table 3 .

Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database articles receive an automatic five (5) points. The FDA access data site says, submissions can be “incomplete, inaccurate, untimely, unverified, or biased” and “the incidence or prevalence of an event cannot be determined from this reporting system alone due to underreporting of events, inaccuracies in reports, lack of verification that the device caused the reported event, and lack of information” and “MDR data alone cannot be used to establish rates of events, evaluate a change in event rates over time or compare event rates between devices. The number of reports cannot be interpreted or used in isolation to reach conclusions.” 80 See Table 4 . Add one additional point for each additional limitation noted in the article.

Add one additional point for each additional limitation and one point for each of its components. Extra blanks are for additional

limitations and their component scores.

Funding sources: none.

Disclosure: none.

Conflict of interests: none.

Acknowledgments: Author would like to thank Lynda Davis for her help with data collection.

References:

All references have been archived at https://archive.org/web/

Writing Limitations of Research Study — 4 Reasons Why It Is Important!

It is not unusual for researchers to come across the term limitations of research during their academic paper writing. More often this is interpreted as something terrible. However, when it comes to research study, limitations can help structure the research study better. Therefore, do not underestimate significance of limitations of research study.

Allow us to take you through the context of how to evaluate the limits of your research and conclude an impactful relevance to your results.

Table of Contents

What Are the Limitations of a Research Study?

Every research has its limit and these limitations arise due to restrictions in methodology or research design.  This could impact your entire research or the research paper you wish to publish. Unfortunately, most researchers choose not to discuss their limitations of research fearing it will affect the value of their article in the eyes of readers.

However, it is very important to discuss your study limitations and show it to your target audience (other researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers etc.). It is very important that you provide an explanation of how your research limitations may affect the conclusions and opinions drawn from your research. Moreover, when as an author you state the limitations of research, it shows that you have investigated all the weaknesses of your study and have a deep understanding of the subject. Being honest could impress your readers and mark your study as a sincere effort in research.

Why and Where Should You Include the Research Limitations?

The main goal of your research is to address your research objectives. Conduct experiments, get results and explain those results, and finally justify your research question . It is best to mention the limitations of research in the discussion paragraph of your research article.

At the very beginning of this paragraph, immediately after highlighting the strengths of the research methodology, you should write down your limitations. You can discuss specific points from your research limitations as suggestions for further research in the conclusion of your thesis.

1. Common Limitations of the Researchers

Limitations that are related to the researcher must be mentioned. This will help you gain transparency with your readers. Furthermore, you could provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in you and your future studies.

2. Limited Access to Information

Your work may involve some institutions and individuals in research, and sometimes you may have problems accessing these institutions. Therefore, you need to redesign and rewrite your work. You must explain your readers the reason for limited access.

3. Limited Time

All researchers are bound by their deadlines when it comes to completing their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. However, the best practice is to acknowledge it and mention a requirement for future study to solve the research problem in a better way.

4. Conflict over Biased Views and Personal Issues

Biased views can affect the research. In fact, researchers end up choosing only those results and data that support their main argument, keeping aside the other loose ends of the research.

Types of Limitations of Research

Before beginning your research study, know that there are certain limitations to what you are testing or possible research results. There are different types that researchers may encounter, and they all have unique characteristics, such as:

1. Research Design Limitations

Certain restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect your final results or research outputs. You may have formulated research goals and objectives too broadly. However, this can help you understand how you can narrow down the formulation of research goals and objectives, thereby increasing the focus of your study.

2. Impact Limitations

Even if your research has excellent statistics and a strong design, it can suffer from the influence of the following factors:

• Presence of increasing findings as researched
• Being population specific
• A strong regional focus.

3. Data or statistical limitations

In some cases, it is impossible to collect sufficient data for research or very difficult to get access to the data. This could lead to incomplete conclusion to your study. Moreover, this insufficiency in data could be the outcome of your study design. The unclear, shabby research outline could produce more problems in interpreting your findings.

How to Correctly Structure Your Research Limitations?

There are strict guidelines for narrowing down research questions, wherein you could justify and explain potential weaknesses of your academic paper. You could go through these basic steps to get a well-structured clarity of research limitations:

• Declare that you wish to identify your limitations of research and explain their importance,
• Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices.
• Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future.

In this section, your readers will see that you are aware of the potential weaknesses in your business, understand them and offer effective solutions, and it will positively strengthen your article as you clarify all limitations of research to your target audience.

Know that you cannot be perfect and there is no individual without flaws. You could use the limitations of research as a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and improve the future of research. In a typical academic paper, research limitations may relate to:

1. Formulating your goals and objectives

If you formulate goals and objectives too broadly, your work will have some shortcomings. In this case, specify effective methods or ways to narrow down the formula of goals and aim to increase your level of study focus.

2. Application of your data collection methods in research

If you do not have experience in primary data collection, there is a risk that there will be flaws in the implementation of your methods. It is necessary to accept this, and learn and educate yourself to understand data collection methods.

3. Sample sizes

This depends on the nature of problem you choose. Sample size is of a greater importance in quantitative studies as opposed to qualitative ones. If your sample size is too small, statistical tests cannot identify significant relationships or connections within a given data set.

You could point out that other researchers should base the same study on a larger sample size to get more accurate results.

4. The absence of previous studies in the field you have chosen

Writing a literature review is an important step in any scientific study because it helps researchers determine the scope of current work in the chosen field. It is a major foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific goals or objectives.

However, if you are focused on the most current and evolving research problem or a very narrow research problem, there may be very little prior research on your topic. For example, if you chose to explore the role of Bitcoin as the currency of the future, you may not find tons of scientific papers addressing the research problem as Bitcoins are only a new phenomenon.

It is important that you learn to identify research limitations examples at each step. Whatever field you choose, feel free to add the shortcoming of your work. This is mainly because you do not have many years of experience writing scientific papers or completing complex work. Therefore, the depth and scope of your discussions may be compromised at different levels compared to academics with a lot of expertise. Include specific points from limitations of research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Have you ever faced a challenge of writing the limitations of research study in your paper? How did you overcome it? What ways did you follow? Were they beneficial? Let us know in the comments below!

Frequently Asked Questions

Setting limitations in our study helps to clarify the outcomes drawn from our research and enhance understanding of the subject. Moreover, it shows that the author has investigated all the weaknesses in the study.

Scope is the range and limitations of a research project which are set to define the boundaries of a project. Limitations are the impacts on the overall study due to the constraints on the research design.

Limitation in research is an impact of a constraint on the research design in the overall study. They are the flaws or weaknesses in the study, which may influence the outcome of the research.

1. Limitations in research can be written as follows: Formulate your goals and objectives 2. Analyze the chosen data collection method and the sample sizes 3. Identify your limitations of research and explain their importance 4. Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices 5. Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future

Excellent article ,,,it has helped me big

This is very helpful information. It has given me an insight on how to go about my study limitations.

Good comments and helpful

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Trending Now

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Unraveling Research Population and Sample: Understanding their role in statistical inference

Research population and sample serve as the cornerstones of any scientific inquiry. They hold the…

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Research Problem Statement — Find out how to write an impactful one!

What Is a Research Problem Statement? A research problem statement is a clear, concise, and…

How to Develop a Good Research Question? — Types & Examples

5 Effective Ways to Avoid Ghostwriting for Busy Researchers

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

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.

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

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Present the Limitations of the Study Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

The limitations of a study are the elements of methodology or study design that impact the interpretation of your research results. The limitations essentially detail any flaws or shortcomings in your study. Study limitations can exist due to constraints on research design, methodology, materials, etc., and these factors may impact the findings of your study. However, researchers are often reluctant to discuss the limitations of their study in their papers, feeling that bringing up limitations may undermine its research value in the eyes of readers and reviewers.

In spite of the impact it might have (and perhaps because of it) you should clearly acknowledge any limitations in your research paper in order to show readers—whether journal editors, other researchers, or the general public—that you are aware of these limitations and to explain how they affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the research.

In this article, we provide some guidelines for writing about research limitations, show examples of some frequently seen study limitations, and recommend techniques for presenting this information. And after you have finished drafting and have received manuscript editing for your work, you still might want to follow this up with academic editing before submitting your work to your target journal.

Why do I need to include limitations of research in my paper?

Although limitations address the potential weaknesses of a study, writing about them toward the end of your paper actually strengthens your study by identifying any problems before other researchers or reviewers find them.

Furthermore, pointing out study limitations shows that you’ve considered the impact of research weakness thoroughly and have an in-depth understanding of your research topic. Since all studies face limitations, being honest and detailing these limitations will impress researchers and reviewers more than ignoring them.

Where should I put the limitations of the study in my paper?

Some limitations might be evident to researchers before the start of the study, while others might become clear while you are conducting the research. Whether these limitations are anticipated or not, and whether they are due to research design or to methodology, they should be clearly identified and discussed in the discussion section —the final section of your paper. Most journals now require you to include a discussion of potential limitations of your work, and many journals now ask you to place this “limitations section” at the very end of your article. 

Some journals ask you to also discuss the strengths of your work in this section, and some allow you to freely choose where to include that information in your discussion section—make sure to always check the author instructions of your target journal before you finalize a manuscript and submit it for peer review .

Limitations of the Study Examples

There are several reasons why limitations of research might exist. The two main categories of limitations are those that result from the methodology and those that result from issues with the researcher(s).

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

Limitations of research due to methodological problems can be addressed by clearly and directly identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this could have been addressed—and SHOULD be addressed in future studies. The following are some major potential methodological issues that can impact the conclusions researchers can draw from the research.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling errors occur when a probability sampling method is used to select a sample, but that sample does not reflect the general population or appropriate population concerned. This results in limitations of your study known as “sample bias” or “selection bias.”

For example, if you conducted a survey to obtain your research results, your samples (participants) were asked to respond to the survey questions. However, you might have had limited ability to gain access to the appropriate type or geographic scope of participants. In this case, the people who responded to your survey questions may not truly be a random sample.

Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

When conducting a study, it is important to have a sufficient sample size in order to draw valid conclusions. The larger the sample, the more precise your results will be. If your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to identify significant relationships in the data.

Normally, statistical tests require a larger sample size to ensure that the sample is considered representative of a population and that the statistical result can be generalized to a larger population. It is a good idea to understand how to choose an appropriate sample size before you conduct your research by using scientific calculation tools—in fact, many journals now require such estimation to be included in every manuscript that is sent out for review.

Lack of previous research studies on the topic

Citing and referencing prior research studies constitutes the basis of the literature review for your thesis or study, and these prior studies provide the theoretical foundations for the research question you are investigating. However, depending on the scope of your research topic, prior research studies that are relevant to your thesis might be limited.

When there is very little or no prior research on a specific topic, you may need to develop an entirely new research typology. In this case, discovering a limitation can be considered an important opportunity to identify literature gaps and to present the need for further development in the area of study.

Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

After you complete your analysis of the research findings (in the discussion section), you might realize that the manner in which you have collected the data or the ways in which you have measured variables has limited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results.

For example, you might realize that you should have addressed your survey questions from another viable perspective, or that you were not able to include an important question in the survey. In these cases, you should acknowledge the deficiency or deficiencies by stating a need for future researchers to revise their specific methods for collecting data that includes these missing elements.

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

Study limitations that arise from situations relating to the researcher or researchers (whether the direct fault of the individuals or not) should also be addressed and dealt with, and remedies to decrease these limitations—both hypothetically in your study, and practically in future studies—should be proposed.

Limited access to data

If your research involved surveying certain people or organizations, you might have faced the problem of having limited access to these respondents. Due to this limited access, you might need to redesign or restructure your research in a different way. In this case, explain the reasons for limited access and be sure that your finding is still reliable and valid despite this limitation.

Time constraints

Just as students have deadlines to turn in their class papers, academic researchers might also have to meet deadlines for submitting a manuscript to a journal or face other time constraints related to their research (e.g., participants are only available during a certain period; funding runs out; collaborators move to a new institution). The time available to study a research problem and to measure change over time might be constrained by such practical issues. If time constraints negatively impacted your study in any way, acknowledge this impact by mentioning a need for a future study (e.g., a longitudinal study) to answer this research problem.

Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

Researchers might hold biased views due to their cultural backgrounds or perspectives of certain phenomena, and this can affect a study’s legitimacy. Also, it is possible that researchers will have biases toward data and results that only support their hypotheses or arguments. In order to avoid these problems, the author(s) of a study should examine whether the way the research problem was stated and the data-gathering process was carried out appropriately.

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

When you discuss the limitations of your study, don’t simply list and describe your limitations—explain how these limitations have influenced your research findings. There might be multiple limitations in your study, but you only need to point out and explain those that directly relate to and impact how you address your research questions.

We suggest that you divide your limitations section into three steps: (1) identify the study limitations; (2) explain how they impact your study in detail; and (3) propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives. By following this sequence when discussing your study’s limitations, you will be able to clearly demonstrate your study’s weakness without undermining the quality and integrity of your research.

Step 1. Identify the limitation(s) of the study

• This part should comprise around 10%-20% of your discussion of study limitations.

The first step is to identify the particular limitation(s) that affected your study. There are many possible limitations of research that can affect your study, but you don’t need to write a long review of all possible study limitations. A 200-500 word critique is an appropriate length for a research limitations section. In the beginning of this section, identify what limitations your study has faced and how important these limitations are.

You only need to identify limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (1) the quality of your findings, and (2) your ability to answer your research question.

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

• This part should comprise around 60-70% of your discussion of limitations.

After identifying your research limitations, it’s time to explain the nature of the limitations and how they potentially impacted your study. For example, when you conduct quantitative research, a lack of probability sampling is an important issue that you should mention. On the other hand, when you conduct qualitative research, the inability to generalize the research findings could be an issue that deserves mention.

Explain the role these limitations played on the results and implications of the research and justify the choice you made in using this “limiting” methodology or other action in your research. Also, make sure that these limitations didn’t undermine the quality of your dissertation .

Step 3. Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives (optional)

• This part should comprise around 10-20% of your discussion of limitations.

After acknowledging the limitations of the research, you need to discuss some possible ways to overcome these limitations in future studies. One way to do this is to present alternative methodologies and ways to avoid issues with, or “fill in the gaps of” the limitations of this study you have presented.  Discuss both the pros and cons of these alternatives and clearly explain why researchers should choose these approaches.

Make sure you are current on approaches used by prior studies and the impacts they have had on their findings. Cite review articles or scientific bodies that have recommended these approaches and why. This might be evidence in support of the approach you chose, or it might be the reason you consider your choices to be included as limitations. This process can act as a justification for your approach and a defense of your decision to take it while acknowledging the feasibility of other approaches.

P hrases and Tips for Introducing Your Study Limitations in the Discussion Section

The following phrases are frequently used to introduce the limitations of the study:

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”
• “As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.”
• “There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the study focused on …. Second ….”

For more articles on research writing and the journal submissions and publication process, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resources page.

And be sure to receive professional English editing and proofreading services , including paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

• Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations (PhD student)
• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Limitations of the Study (USC Library)
• Research Limitations (Research Methodology)
• How to Present Limitations and Alternatives (UMASS)

Article References

Pearson-Stuttard, J., Kypridemos, C., Collins, B., Mozaffarian, D., Huang, Y., Bandosz, P.,…Micha, R. (2018). Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002551

Xu, W.L, Pedersen, N.L., Keller, L., Kalpouzos, G., Wang, H.X., Graff, C,. Fratiglioni, L. (2015). HHEX_23 AA Genotype Exacerbates Effect of Diabetes on Dementia and Alzheimer Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. PLOS. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001853

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Identify Limitations in Research

4-minute read

• 7th March 2022

Whether you’re a veteran researcher with years of experience under your belt or a novice to the field that’s feeling overwhelmed with where to start, you must understand that every study has its limitations. These are restrictions that arise from the study’s design, or the methodology implemented during the testing phase. Unfortunately, research limitations will always exist due to the subjective nature of testing a hypothesis. We’ve compiled some helpful information below on how to identify and accept research limitations and use them to your advantage. Essentially, we’ll show you how to make lemonade (a brilliant piece of academic work ) from the lemons you receive (the constraints your study reveals).

Research Limitations

So, let’s dive straight in, shall we? It’s always beneficial (and good practice) to disclose your research limitations . A common thought is that divulging these shortcomings will undermine the credibility and quality of your research. However, this is certainly not the case— stating the facts upfront not only reinforces your reputation as a researcher but also lets the assessor or reader know that you’re confident and transparent about the results and relevance of your study, despite these constraints.

Additionally, it creates a gap for more research opportunities, where you can analyze these limitations and determine how to incorporate or address them in a new batch of tests or create a new hypothesis altogether. Another bonus is that it helps readers to understand the optimum conditions for how to apply the results of your testing. This is a win-win, making for a far more persuasive research paper .

Now that you know why you should clarify your research limitations, let’s focus on which ones take precedence and should be disclosed. Any given research project can be vulnerable to various hindrances, so how do you identify them and single out the most significant ones to discuss? Well, that depends entirely on the nature of your study. You’ll need to comb through your research approach, methodology, testing processes, and expected results to identify the type of limitations your study may be exposed to. It’s worth noting that this understanding can only offer a broad idea of the possible restrictions you’ll face and may potentially change throughout the study.

We’ve compiled a list of the most common types of research limitations that you may encounter so you can adequately prepare for them and remain vigilant during each stage of your study.

Sample Size:

It’s critical that you choose a sample size that accurately represents the population you wish to test your theory on. If a sample is too small, the results cannot reliably be generalized across a large population.

Methodology:

The method you choose before you commence testing might seem effective in theory, but too many stumbling blocks during the testing phase can influence the accuracy and reliability of the results.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Collection of Data:

The methods you utilize to obtain your research—surveys, emails, in-person interviews, phone calls—will directly influence the type of results your study yields.

Age of Data:

The nature of the information—and how far back it goes—affects the type of assumptions you can make. Extrapolating older data for a current hypothesis can significantly change the outcome of your testing.

Time Constraints:

Working within the deadline of when you need to submit your findings will determine the extent of your research and testing and, therefore, can heavily impact your results. Limited time frames for testing might mean not achieving the scope of results you were originally looking for.

Limited Budget:

Your study may require equipment and other resources that can become extremely costly. Budget constraints may mean you cannot acquire advanced software, programs, or travel to multiple destinations to interview participants. All of these factors can substantially influence your results.

So, now that you know how to determine your research limitations and the types you might experience, where should you document it? It’s commonly disclosed at the beginning of your discussion section , so the reader understands the shortcomings of your study before digging into the juicy bit—your findings. Alternatively, you can detail the constraints faced at the end of the discussion section to emphasize the requirements for the completion of further studies.

We hope this post will prepare you for some of the pitfalls you may encounter when conducting and documenting your research. Once you have a first draft ready, consider submitting a free sample to us for proofreading to ensure that your writing is concise and error-free and your results—despite their limitations— shine through.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Research Limitations & Delimitations

What they are and how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | September 2022

If you’re new to the world of research, you’ve probably heard the terms “ research limitations ” and “ research delimitations ” being thrown around, often quite loosely. In this post, we’ll unpack what both of these mean, how they’re similar and how they’re different – so that you can write up these sections the right way.

Overview: Limitations vs Delimitations

• Are they the same?
• What are research limitations
• What are research delimitations
• Limitations vs delimitations

First things first…

Let’s start with the most important takeaway point of this post – research limitations and research delimitations are not the same – but they are related to each other (we’ll unpack that a little later). So, if you hear someone using these two words interchangeably, be sure to share this post with them!

Research Limitations

Research limitations are, at the simplest level, the weaknesses of the study, based on factors that are often outside of your control as the researcher. These factors could include things like time , access to funding, equipment , data or participants . For example, if you weren’t able to access a random sample of participants for your study and had to adopt a convenience sampling strategy instead, that would impact the generalizability of your findings and therefore reflect a limitation of your study.

Research limitations can also emerge from the research design itself . For example, if you were undertaking a correlational study, you wouldn’t be able to infer causality (since correlation doesn’t mean certain causation). Similarly, if you utilised online surveys to collect data from your participants, you naturally wouldn’t be able to get the same degree of rich data that you would from in-person interviews .

Simply put, research limitations reflect the shortcomings of a study , based on practical (or theoretical) constraints that the researcher faced. These shortcomings limit what you can conclude from a study, but at the same time, present a foundation for future research . Importantly, all research has limitations , so there’s no need to hide anything here – as long as you discuss how the limitations might affect your findings, it’s all good.

Research Delimitations

Alright, now that we’ve unpacked the limitations, let’s move on to the delimitations .

Research delimitations are similar to limitations in that they also “ limit ” the study, but their focus is entirely different. Specifically, the delimitations of a study refer to the scope of the research aims and research questions . In other words, delimitations reflect the choices you, as the researcher, intentionally make in terms of what you will and won’t try to achieve with your study. In other words, what your research aims and research questions will and won’t include.

As we’ve spoken about many times before, it’s important to have a tight, narrow focus for your research, so that you can dive deeply into your topic, apply your energy to one specific area and develop meaningful insights. If you have an overly broad scope or unfocused topic, your research will often pull in multiple, even opposing directions, and you’ll just land up with a muddy mess of findings .

So, the delimitations section is where you’ll clearly state what your research aims and research questions will focus on – and just as importantly, what they will exclude . For example, you might investigate a widespread phenomenon, but choose to focus your study on a specific age group, ethnicity or gender. Similarly, your study may focus exclusively on one country, city or even organization. As long as the scope is well justified (in other words, it represents a novel, valuable research topic), this is perfectly acceptable – in fact, it’s essential. Remember, focus is your friend.

Need a helping hand?

Conclusion: Limitations vs Delimitations

Ok, so let’s recap.

Research limitations and research delimitations are related in that they both refer to “limits” within a study. But, they are distinctly different. Limitations reflect the shortcomings of your study, based on practical or theoretical constraints that you faced.

Contrasted to that, delimitations reflect the choices that you made in terms of the focus and scope of your research aims and research questions. If you want to learn more about research aims and questions, you can check out this video post , where we unpack those concepts in detail.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

18 Comments

Good clarification of ideas on how a researcher ought to do during Process of choice

Thank you so much for this very simple but explicit explanation on limitation and delimitation. It has so helped me to develop my masters proposal. hope to recieve more from your site as time progresses

Thank you for this explanation – very clear.

Thanks for the explanation, really got it well.

This website is really helpful for my masters proposal

Thank you very much for helping to explain these two terms

I spent almost the whole day trying to figure out the differences

when I came across your notes everything became very clear

thanks for the clearly outlined explanation on the two terms, limitation and delimitation.

Very helpful Many thanks 🙏

Excellent it resolved my conflict .

I would like you to assist me please. If in my Research, I interviewed some participants and I submitted Questionnaires to other participants to answered to the questions, in the same organization, Is this a Qualitative methodology , a Quantitative Methodology or is it a Mixture Methodology I have used in my research? Please help me

How do I cite this article in APA format

Really so great ,finally have understood it’s difference now

Getting more clear regarding Limitations and Delimitation and concepts

I really appreciate your apt and precise explanation of the two concepts namely ; Limitations and Delimitations.

This is a good sources of research information for learners.

thank you for this, very helpful to researchers

Very good explained

Great and clear explanation, after a long confusion period on the two words, i can now explain to someone with ease.

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.

• Print Friendly

21 Research Limitations Examples

Research limitations refer to the potential weaknesses inherent in a study. All studies have limitations of some sort, meaning declaring limitations doesn’t necessarily need to be a bad thing, so long as your declaration of limitations is well thought-out and explained.

Rarely is a study perfect. Researchers have to make trade-offs when developing their studies, which are often based upon practical considerations such as time and monetary constraints, weighing the breadth of participants against the depth of insight, and choosing one methodology or another.

In research, studies can have limitations such as limited scope, researcher subjectivity, and lack of available research tools.

Acknowledging the limitations of your study should be seen as a strength. It demonstrates your willingness for transparency, humility, and submission to the scientific method and can bolster the integrity of the study. It can also inform future research direction.

Typically, scholars will explore the limitations of their study in either their methodology section, their conclusion section, or both.

Research Limitations Examples

Qualitative and quantitative research offer different perspectives and methods in exploring phenomena, each with its own strengths and limitations. So, I’ve split the limitations examples sections into qualitative and quantitative below.

Qualitative Research Limitations

Qualitative research seeks to understand phenomena in-depth and in context. It focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions.

It’s often used to explore new or complex issues, and it provides rich, detailed insights into participants’ experiences, behaviors, and attitudes. However, these strengths also create certain limitations, as explained below.

1. Subjectivity

Qualitative research often requires the researcher to interpret subjective data. One researcher may examine a text and identify different themes or concepts as more dominant than others.

Close qualitative readings of texts are necessarily subjective – and while this may be a limitation, qualitative researchers argue this is the best way to deeply understand everything in context.

Suggested Solution and Response: To minimize subjectivity bias, you could consider cross-checking your own readings of themes and data against other scholars’ readings and interpretations. This may involve giving the raw data to a supervisor or colleague and asking them to code the data separately, then coming together to compare and contrast results.

2. Researcher Bias

The concept of researcher bias is related to, but slightly different from, subjectivity.

Researcher bias refers to the perspectives and opinions you bring with you when doing your research.

For example, a researcher who is explicitly of a certain philosophical or political persuasion may bring that persuasion to bear when interpreting data.

In many scholarly traditions, we will attempt to minimize researcher bias through the utilization of clear procedures that are set out in advance or through the use of statistical analysis tools.

However, in other traditions, such as in postmodern feminist research , declaration of bias is expected, and acknowledgment of bias is seen as a positive because, in those traditions, it is believed that bias cannot be eliminated from research, so instead, it is a matter of integrity to present it upfront.

Suggested Solution and Response: Acknowledge the potential for researcher bias and, depending on your theoretical framework , accept this, or identify procedures you have taken to seek a closer approximation to objectivity in your coding and analysis.

3. Generalizability

If you’re struggling to find a limitation to discuss in your own qualitative research study, then this one is for you: all qualitative research, of all persuasions and perspectives, cannot be generalized.

This is a core feature that sets qualitative data and quantitative data apart.

The point of qualitative data is to select case studies and similarly small corpora and dig deep through in-depth analysis and thick description of data.

Often, this will also mean that you have a non-randomized sample size.

While this is a positive – you’re going to get some really deep, contextualized, interesting insights – it also means that the findings may not be generalizable to a larger population that may not be representative of the small group of people in your study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that take a quantitative approach to the question.

4. The Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect refers to the phenomenon where research participants change their ‘observed behavior’ when they’re aware that they are being observed.

This effect was first identified by Elton Mayo who conducted studies of the effects of various factors ton workers’ productivity. He noticed that no matter what he did – turning up the lights, turning down the lights, etc. – there was an increase in worker outputs compared to prior to the study taking place.

Mayo realized that the mere act of observing the workers made them work harder – his observation was what was changing behavior.

So, if you’re looking for a potential limitation to name for your observational research study , highlight the possible impact of the Hawthorne effect (and how you could reduce your footprint or visibility in order to decrease its likelihood).

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight ways you have attempted to reduce your footprint while in the field, and guarantee anonymity to your research participants.

5. Replicability

Quantitative research has a great benefit in that the studies are replicable – a researcher can get a similar sample size, duplicate the variables, and re-test a study. But you can’t do that in qualitative research.

Qualitative research relies heavily on context – a specific case study or specific variables that make a certain instance worthy of analysis. As a result, it’s often difficult to re-enter the same setting with the same variables and repeat the study.

Furthermore, the individual researcher’s interpretation is more influential in qualitative research, meaning even if a new researcher enters an environment and makes observations, their observations may be different because subjectivity comes into play much more. This doesn’t make the research bad necessarily (great insights can be made in qualitative research), but it certainly does demonstrate a weakness of qualitative research.

6. Limited Scope

“Limited scope” is perhaps one of the most common limitations listed by researchers – and while this is often a catch-all way of saying, “well, I’m not studying that in this study”, it’s also a valid point.

No study can explore everything related to a topic. At some point, we have to make decisions about what’s included in the study and what is excluded from the study.

So, you could say that a limitation of your study is that it doesn’t look at an extra variable or concept that’s certainly worthy of study but will have to be explored in your next project because this project has a clearly and narrowly defined goal.

Suggested Solution and Response: Be clear about what’s in and out of the study when writing your research question.

7. Time Constraints

This is also a catch-all claim you can make about your research project: that you would have included more people in the study, looked at more variables, and so on. But you’ve got to submit this thing by the end of next semester! You’ve got time constraints.

And time constraints are a recognized reality in all research.

But this means you’ll need to explain how time has limited your decisions. As with “limited scope”, this may mean that you had to study a smaller group of subjects, limit the amount of time you spent in the field, and so forth.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will build on your current work, possibly as a PhD project.

8. Resource Intensiveness

Qualitative research can be expensive due to the cost of transcription, the involvement of trained researchers, and potential travel for interviews or observations.

So, resource intensiveness is similar to the time constraints concept. If you don’t have the funds, you have to make decisions about which tools to use, which statistical software to employ, and how many research assistants you can dedicate to the study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will gain more funding on the back of this ‘ exploratory study ‘.

9. Coding Difficulties

Data analysis in qualitative research often involves coding, which can be subjective and complex, especially when dealing with ambiguous or contradicting data.

After naming this as a limitation in your research, it’s important to explain how you’ve attempted to address this. Some ways to ‘limit the limitation’ include:

• Triangulation: Have 2 other researchers code the data as well and cross-check your results with theirs to identify outliers that may need to be re-examined, debated with the other researchers, or removed altogether.
• Procedure: Use a clear coding procedure to demonstrate reliability in your coding process. I personally use the thematic network analysis method outlined in this academic article by Attride-Stirling (2001).

Suggested Solution and Response: Triangulate your coding findings with colleagues, and follow a thematic network analysis procedure.

10. Risk of Non-Responsiveness

There is always a risk in research that research participants will be unwilling or uncomfortable sharing their genuine thoughts and feelings in the study.

This is particularly true when you’re conducting research on sensitive topics, politicized topics, or topics where the participant is expressing vulnerability .

This is similar to the Hawthorne effect (aka participant bias), where participants change their behaviors in your presence; but it goes a step further, where participants actively hide their true thoughts and feelings from you.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be non-responsiveness from some participants.

11. Risk of Attrition

Attrition refers to the process of losing research participants throughout the study.

This occurs most commonly in longitudinal studies , where a researcher must return to conduct their analysis over spaced periods of time, often over a period of years.

Things happen to people over time – they move overseas, their life experiences change, they get sick, change their minds, and even die. The more time that passes, the greater the risk of attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be attrition over time.

12. Difficulty in Maintaining Confidentiality and Anonymity

Given the detailed nature of qualitative data , ensuring participant anonymity can be challenging.

If you have a sensitive topic in a specific case study, even anonymizing research participants sometimes isn’t enough. People might be able to induce who you’re talking about.

Sometimes, this will mean you have to exclude some interesting data that you collected from your final report. Confidentiality and anonymity come before your findings in research ethics – and this is a necessary limiting factor.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight the efforts you have taken to anonymize data, and accept that confidentiality and accountability place extremely important constraints on academic research.

13. Difficulty in Finding Research Participants

A study that looks at a very specific phenomenon or even a specific set of cases within a phenomenon means that the pool of potential research participants can be very low.

Compile on top of this the fact that many people you approach may choose not to participate, and you could end up with a very small corpus of subjects to explore. This may limit your ability to make complete findings, even in a quantitative sense.

You may need to therefore limit your research question and objectives to something more realistic.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that this is going to limit the study’s generalizability significantly.

14. Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the things you cannot do based on ethical concerns identified either by yourself or your institution’s ethics review board.

This might include threats to the physical or psychological well-being of your research subjects, the potential of releasing data that could harm a person’s reputation, and so on.

Furthermore, even if your study follows all expected standards of ethics, you still, as an ethical researcher, need to allow a research participant to pull out at any point in time, after which you cannot use their data, which demonstrates an overlap between ethical constraints and participant attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that these ethical limitations are inevitable but important to sustain the integrity of the research.

For more on Qualitative Research, Explore my Qualitative Research Guide

Quantitative Research Limitations

Quantitative research focuses on quantifiable data and statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s often used to test hypotheses, assess relationships and causality, and generalize findings across larger populations.

Quantitative research is widely respected for its ability to provide reliable, measurable, and generalizable data (if done well!). Its structured methodology has strengths over qualitative research, such as the fact it allows for replication of the study, which underpins the validity of the research.

However, this approach is not without it limitations, explained below.

1. Over-Simplification

Quantitative research is powerful because it allows you to measure and analyze data in a systematic and standardized way. However, one of its limitations is that it can sometimes simplify complex phenomena or situations.

In other words, it might miss the subtleties or nuances of the research subject.

For example, if you’re studying why people choose a particular diet, a quantitative study might identify factors like age, income, or health status. But it might miss other aspects, such as cultural influences or personal beliefs, that can also significantly impact dietary choices.

When writing about this limitation, you can say that your quantitative approach, while providing precise measurements and comparisons, may not capture the full complexity of your subjects of study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest a follow-up case study using the same research participants in order to gain additional context and depth.

2. Lack of Context

Another potential issue with quantitative research is that it often focuses on numbers and statistics at the expense of context or qualitative information.

Let’s say you’re studying the effect of classroom size on student performance. You might find that students in smaller classes generally perform better. However, this doesn’t take into account other variables, like teaching style , student motivation, or family support.

When describing this limitation, you might say, “Although our research provides important insights into the relationship between class size and student performance, it does not incorporate the impact of other potentially influential variables. Future research could benefit from a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative analysis with qualitative insights.”

3. Applicability to Real-World Settings

Oftentimes, experimental research takes place in controlled environments to limit the influence of outside factors.

This control is great for isolation and understanding the specific phenomenon but can limit the applicability or “external validity” of the research to real-world settings.

For example, if you conduct a lab experiment to see how sleep deprivation impacts cognitive performance, the sterile, controlled lab environment might not reflect real-world conditions where people are dealing with multiple stressors.

Therefore, when explaining the limitations of your quantitative study in your methodology section, you could state:

“While our findings provide valuable information about [topic], the controlled conditions of the experiment may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where extraneous variables will exist. As such, the direct applicability of our results to broader contexts may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will engage in real-world observational research, such as ethnographic research.

4. Limited Flexibility

Once a quantitative study is underway, it can be challenging to make changes to it. This is because, unlike in grounded research, you’re putting in place your study in advance, and you can’t make changes part-way through.

Your study design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques need to be decided upon before you start collecting data.

For example, if you are conducting a survey on the impact of social media on teenage mental health, and halfway through, you realize that you should have included a question about their screen time, it’s generally too late to add it.

When discussing this limitation, you could write something like, “The structured nature of our quantitative approach allows for consistent data collection and analysis but also limits our flexibility to adapt and modify the research process in response to emerging insights and ideas.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use mixed-methods or qualitative research methods to gain additional depth of insight.

5. Risk of Survey Error

Surveys are a common tool in quantitative research, but they carry risks of error.

There can be measurement errors (if a question is misunderstood), coverage errors (if some groups aren’t adequately represented), non-response errors (if certain people don’t respond), and sampling errors (if your sample isn’t representative of the population).

For instance, if you’re surveying college students about their study habits , but only daytime students respond because you conduct the survey during the day, your results will be skewed.

In discussing this limitation, you might say, “Despite our best efforts to develop a comprehensive survey, there remains a risk of survey error, including measurement, coverage, non-response, and sampling errors. These could potentially impact the reliability and generalizability of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use other survey tools to compare and contrast results.

6. Limited Ability to Probe Answers

With quantitative research, you typically can’t ask follow-up questions or delve deeper into participants’ responses like you could in a qualitative interview.

For instance, imagine you are surveying 500 students about study habits in a questionnaire. A respondent might indicate that they study for two hours each night. You might want to follow up by asking them to elaborate on what those study sessions involve or how effective they feel their habits are.

However, quantitative research generally disallows this in the way a qualitative semi-structured interview could.

When discussing this limitation, you might write, “Given the structured nature of our survey, our ability to probe deeper into individual responses is limited. This means we may not fully understand the context or reasoning behind the responses, potentially limiting the depth of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that engage in mixed-method or qualitative methodologies to address the issue from another angle.

7. Reliance on Instruments for Data Collection

In quantitative research, the collection of data heavily relies on instruments like questionnaires, surveys, or machines.

The limitation here is that the data you get is only as good as the instrument you’re using. If the instrument isn’t designed or calibrated well, your data can be flawed.

For instance, if you’re using a questionnaire to study customer satisfaction and the questions are vague, confusing, or biased, the responses may not accurately reflect the customers’ true feelings.

When discussing this limitation, you could say, “Our study depends on the use of questionnaires for data collection. Although we have put significant effort into designing and testing the instrument, it’s possible that inaccuracies or misunderstandings could potentially affect the validity of the data collected.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use different instruments but examine the same variables to triangulate results.

8. Time and Resource Constraints (Specific to Quantitative Research)

Quantitative research can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially when dealing with large samples.

It often involves systematic sampling, rigorous design, and sometimes complex statistical analysis.

If resources and time are limited, it can restrict the scale of your research, the techniques you can employ, or the extent of your data analysis.

For example, you may want to conduct a nationwide survey on public opinion about a certain policy. However, due to limited resources, you might only be able to survey people in one city.

When writing about this limitation, you could say, “Given the scope of our research and the resources available, we are limited to conducting our survey within one city, which may not fully represent the nationwide public opinion. Hence, the generalizability of the results may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will have more funding or longer timeframes.

How to Discuss Your Research Limitations

1. in your research proposal and methodology section.

In the research proposal, which will become the methodology section of your dissertation, I would recommend taking the four following steps, in order:

• Be Explicit about your Scope – If you limit the scope of your study in your research question, aims, and objectives, then you can set yourself up well later in the methodology to say that certain questions are “outside the scope of the study.” For example, you may identify the fact that the study doesn’t address a certain variable, but you can follow up by stating that the research question is specifically focused on the variable that you are examining, so this limitation would need to be looked at in future studies.
• Acknowledge the Limitation – Acknowledging the limitations of your study demonstrates reflexivity and humility and can make your research more reliable and valid. It also pre-empts questions the people grading your paper may have, so instead of them down-grading you for your limitations; they will congratulate you on explaining the limitations and how you have addressed them!
• Explain your Decisions – You may have chosen your approach (despite its limitations) for a very specific reason. This might be because your approach remains, on balance, the best one to answer your research question. Or, it might be because of time and monetary constraints that are outside of your control.
• Highlight the Strengths of your Approach – Conclude your limitations section by strongly demonstrating that, despite limitations, you’ve worked hard to minimize the effects of the limitations and that you have chosen your specific approach and methodology because it’s also got some terrific strengths. Name the strengths.

Overall, you’ll want to acknowledge your own limitations but also explain that the limitations don’t detract from the value of your study as it stands.

2. In the Conclusion Section or Chapter

In the conclusion of your study, it is generally expected that you return to a discussion of the study’s limitations. Here, I recommend the following steps:

• Acknowledge issues faced – After completing your study, you will be increasingly aware of issues you may have faced that, if you re-did the study, you may have addressed earlier in order to avoid those issues. Acknowledge these issues as limitations, and frame them as recommendations for subsequent studies.
• Suggest further research – Scholarly research aims to fill gaps in the current literature and knowledge. Having established your expertise through your study, suggest lines of inquiry for future researchers. You could state that your study had certain limitations, and “future studies” can address those limitations.
• Suggest a mixed methods approach – Qualitative and quantitative research each have pros and cons. So, note those ‘cons’ of your approach, then say the next study should approach the topic using the opposite methodology or could approach it using a mixed-methods approach that could achieve the benefits of quantitative studies with the nuanced insights of associated qualitative insights as part of an in-study case-study.

Overall, be clear about both your limitations and how those limitations can inform future studies.

In sum, each type of research method has its own strengths and limitations. Qualitative research excels in exploring depth, context, and complexity, while quantitative research excels in examining breadth, generalizability, and quantifiable measures. Despite their individual limitations, each method contributes unique and valuable insights, and researchers often use them together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research , 1 (3), 385-405. ( Source )

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug, J., & Williams, R. A. (2021).  SAGE research methods foundations . London: Sage Publications.

Clark, T., Foster, L., Bryman, A., & Sloan, L. (2021).  Bryman’s social research methods . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions.  Organizational Research Methods ,  25 (2), 183-210. ( Source )

Lenger, A. (2019). The rejection of qualitative research methods in economics.  Journal of Economic Issues ,  53 (4), 946-965. ( Source )

Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations.  Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research ,  5 (1), 53-63. ( Source )

Walliman, N. (2021).  Research methods: The basics . New York: Routledge.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Research Limitations

It is for sure that your research will have some limitations and it is normal. However, it is critically important for you to be striving to minimize the range of scope of limitations throughout the research process.  Also, you need to provide the acknowledgement of your research limitations in conclusions chapter honestly.

It is always better to identify and acknowledge shortcomings of your work, rather than to leave them pointed out to your by your dissertation assessor. While discussing your research limitations, don’t just provide the list and description of shortcomings of your work. It is also important for you to explain how these limitations have impacted your research findings.

Your research may have multiple limitations, but you need to discuss only those limitations that directly relate to your research problems. For example, if conducting a meta-analysis of the secondary data has not been stated as your research objective, no need to mention it as your research limitation.

Research limitations in a typical dissertation may relate to the following points:

1. Formulation of research aims and objectives . You might have formulated research aims and objectives too broadly. You can specify in which ways the formulation of research aims and objectives could be narrowed so that the level of focus of the study could be increased.

2. Implementation of data collection method . Because you do not have an extensive experience in primary data collection (otherwise you would not be reading this book), there is a great chance that the nature of implementation of data collection method is flawed.

3. Sample size. Sample size depends on the nature of the research problem. If sample size is too small, statistical tests would not be able to identify significant relationships within data set. You can state that basing your study in larger sample size could have generated more accurate results. The importance of sample size is greater in quantitative studies compared to qualitative studies.

4. Lack of previous studies in the research area . Literature review is an important part of any research, because it helps to identify the scope of works that have been done so far in research area. Literature review findings are used as the foundation for the researcher to be built upon to achieve her research objectives.

However, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic if you have focused on the most contemporary and evolving research problem or too narrow research problem. For example, if you have chosen to explore the role of Bitcoins as the future currency, you may not be able to find tons of scholarly paper addressing the research problem, because Bitcoins are only a recent phenomenon.

5. Scope of discussions . You can include this point as a limitation of your research regardless of the choice of the research area. Because (most likely) you don’t have many years of experience of conducing researches and producing academic papers of such a large size individually, the scope and depth of discussions in your paper is compromised in many levels compared to the works of experienced scholars.

You can discuss certain points from your research limitations as the suggestion for further research at conclusions chapter of your dissertation.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

• Privacy Policy

Home » Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Delimitations

Definition:

Delimitations refer to the specific boundaries or limitations that are set in a research study in order to narrow its scope and focus. Delimitations may be related to a variety of factors, including the population being studied, the geographical location, the time period, the research design , and the methods or tools being used to collect data .

The Importance of Delimitations in Research Studies

Here are some reasons why delimitations are important in research studies:

• Provide focus : Delimitations help researchers focus on a specific area of interest and avoid getting sidetracked by tangential topics. By setting clear boundaries, researchers can concentrate their efforts on the most relevant and significant aspects of the research question.
• Increase validity : Delimitations ensure that the research is more valid by defining the boundaries of the study. When researchers establish clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion, they can better control for extraneous variables that might otherwise confound the results.
• Improve generalizability : Delimitations help researchers determine the extent to which their findings can be generalized to other populations or contexts. By specifying the sample size, geographic region, time frame, or other relevant factors, researchers can provide more accurate estimates of the generalizability of their results.
• Enhance feasibility : Delimitations help researchers identify the resources and time required to complete the study. By setting realistic parameters, researchers can ensure that the study is feasible and can be completed within the available time and resources.
• Clarify scope: Delimitations help readers understand the scope of the research project. By explicitly stating what is included and excluded, researchers can avoid confusion and ensure that readers understand the boundaries of the study.

Types of Delimitations in Research

Here are some types of delimitations in research and their significance:

Time Delimitations

This type of delimitation refers to the time frame in which the research will be conducted. Time delimitations are important because they help to narrow down the scope of the study and ensure that the research is feasible within the given time constraints.

Geographical Delimitations

Geographical delimitations refer to the geographic boundaries within which the research will be conducted. These delimitations are significant because they help to ensure that the research is relevant to the intended population or location.

Population Delimitations

Population delimitations refer to the specific group of people that the research will focus on. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is targeted to a specific group, which can improve the accuracy of the results.

Data Delimitations

Data delimitations refer to the specific types of data that will be used in the research. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the data is relevant to the research question and that the research is conducted using reliable and valid data sources.

Scope Delimitations

Scope delimitations refer to the specific aspects or dimensions of the research that will be examined. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is focused and that the findings are relevant to the research question.

How to Write Delimitations

In order to write delimitations in research, you can follow these steps:

• Identify the scope of your study : Determine the extent of your research by defining its boundaries. This will help you to identify the areas that are within the scope of your research and those that are outside of it.
• Determine the time frame : Decide on the time period that your research will cover. This could be a specific period, such as a year, or it could be a general time frame, such as the last decade.
• I dentify the population : Determine the group of people or objects that your study will focus on. This could be a specific age group, gender, profession, or geographic location.
• Establish the sample size : Determine the number of participants that your study will involve. This will help you to establish the number of people you need to recruit for your study.
• Determine the variables: Identify the variables that will be measured in your study. This could include demographic information, attitudes, behaviors, or other factors.
• Explain the limitations : Clearly state the limitations of your study. This could include limitations related to time, resources, sample size, or other factors that may impact the validity of your research.
• Justify the limitations : Explain why these limitations are necessary for your research. This will help readers understand why certain factors were excluded from the study.

When to Write Delimitations in Research

Here are some situations when you may need to write delimitations in research:

• When defining the scope of the study: Delimitations help to define the boundaries of your research by specifying what is and what is not included in your study. For instance, you may delimit your study by focusing on a specific population, geographic region, time period, or research methodology.
• When addressing limitations: Delimitations can also be used to address the limitations of your research. For example, if your data is limited to a certain timeframe or geographic area, you can include this information in your delimitations to help readers understand the limitations of your findings.
• When justifying the relevance of the study : Delimitations can also help you to justify the relevance of your research. For instance, if you are conducting a study on a specific population or region, you can explain why this group or area is important and how your research will contribute to the understanding of this topic.
• When clarifying the research question or hypothesis : Delimitations can also be used to clarify your research question or hypothesis. By specifying the boundaries of your study, you can ensure that your research question or hypothesis is focused and specific.
• When establishing the context of the study : Finally, delimitations can help you to establish the context of your research. By providing information about the scope and limitations of your study, you can help readers to understand the context in which your research was conducted and the implications of your findings.

Examples of Delimitations in Research

Examples of Delimitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title : “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Cybersecurity Threat Detection”

Delimitations :

• The study will focus solely on the use of artificial intelligence in detecting and mitigating cybersecurity threats.
• The study will only consider the impact of AI on threat detection and not on other aspects of cybersecurity such as prevention, response, or recovery.
• The research will be limited to a specific type of cybersecurity threats, such as malware or phishing attacks, rather than all types of cyber threats.
• The study will only consider the use of AI in a specific industry, such as finance or healthcare, rather than examining its impact across all industries.
• The research will only consider AI-based threat detection tools that are currently available and widely used, rather than including experimental or theoretical AI models.

Research Title: “The Effects of Social Media on Academic Performance: A Case Study of College Students”

Delimitations:

• The study will focus only on college students enrolled in a particular university.
• The study will only consider social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• The study will only analyze the academic performance of students based on their GPA and course grades.
• The study will not consider the impact of other factors such as student demographics, socioeconomic status, or other factors that may affect academic performance.
• The study will only use self-reported data from students, rather than objective measures of their social media usage or academic performance.

Purpose of Delimitations

Some Purposes of Delimitations are as follows:

• Focusing the research : By defining the scope of the study, delimitations help researchers to narrow down their research questions and focus on specific aspects of the topic. This allows for a more targeted and meaningful study.
• Clarifying the research scope : Delimitations help to clarify the boundaries of the research, which helps readers to understand what is and is not included in the study.
• Avoiding scope creep : Delimitations help researchers to stay focused on their research objectives and avoid being sidetracked by tangential issues or data.
• Enhancing the validity of the study : By setting clear boundaries, delimitations help to ensure that the study is valid and reliable.
• Improving the feasibility of the study : Delimitations help researchers to ensure that their study is feasible and can be conducted within the time and resources available.

Applications of Delimitations

Here are some common applications of delimitations:

• Geographic delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific geographic area, such as a particular city, state, or country. This helps to narrow the focus of the study and makes it more manageable.
• Time delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific time period, such as a decade, a year, or a specific date range. This can be useful for studying trends over time or for comparing data from different time periods.
• Population delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific population, such as a particular age group, gender, or ethnic group. This can help to ensure that the study is relevant to the population being studied.
• Data delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific types of data, such as survey responses, interviews, or archival records. This can help to ensure that the study is based on reliable and relevant data.
• Conceptual delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific concepts or variables, such as only studying the effects of a particular treatment on a specific outcome. This can help to ensure that the study is focused and clear.

Advantages of Delimitations

Some Advantages of Delimitations are as follows:

• Helps to focus the study: Delimitations help to narrow down the scope of the research and identify specific areas that need to be investigated. This helps to focus the study and ensures that the research is not too broad or too narrow.
• Defines the study population: Delimitations can help to define the population that will be studied. This can include age range, gender, geographical location, or any other factors that are relevant to the research. This helps to ensure that the study is more specific and targeted.
• Provides clarity: Delimitations help to provide clarity about the research study. By identifying the boundaries and limitations of the research, it helps to avoid confusion and ensures that the research is more understandable.
• Improves validity: Delimitations can help to improve the validity of the research by ensuring that the study is more focused and specific. This can help to ensure that the research is more accurate and reliable.
• Reduces bias: Delimitations can help to reduce bias by limiting the scope of the research. This can help to ensure that the research is more objective and unbiased.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The influence of athletes’ gratitude on burnout: the sequential mediating roles of the coach–athlete relationship and hope.

• 1 School of Physical Education, China University of Geoscience, Wuhan, China
• 2 School of Physical Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
• 3 School of Physical Education, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China

Background: Athlete burnout is a widespread psychological syndrome in competitive sports, negatively impacts athletes’ competitive state and hampers the healthy development of sports organizations. With the rise of positive psychology, exploring the mechanisms of athlete psychological fatigue through the lens of psychological capital has become a focal point of recent research. This study introduces gratitude, a key element of psychological capital in positive psychology, to examine its effect on athlete burnout and its mechanism of action, with a particular focus on the sequential mediating roles of the coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and hope.

Method: A cross-sectional study design was utilized, involving 483 active Chinese athletes from national training teams and professional sports teams. The sample comprised both male (n=251) and female (n=232) athletes, with an average age of 19.24 ± 3.99 years. Participants were asked to complete self-administered questionnaires, including the Gratitude Questionnaire, CAR Questionnaire, Hope Questionnaire, and Athlete Burnout Questionnaire. Structural equation modeling in AMOS 24.0 and descriptive statistics and correlation analyses in SPSS 20.0 were employed for data analysis.

Results: The study revealed significant associations between athlete gratitude, CAR, hope, and athlete burnout. Notably, gratitude was found to both directly and indirectly (via CAR and hope) influence burnout levels among athletes, suggesting a sequential mediation effect.

Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of positive psychological constructs in buffering against athlete burnout. Specifically, gratitude, alongside a supportive CAR and elevated levels of hope, may play crucial roles in mitigating burnout symptoms. These insights offer promising directions for the development of targeted intervention strategies aimed at fostering athlete well-being and performance, advocating for the integration of positive psychology principles in the management and prevention of athlete burnout.

1 Introduction

In the dynamic environment of competitive sports, athletes are subject to an array of pressures, including stringent performance expectations, rigorous selection processes, and elevated risks of injury. These challenges contribute significantly to the prevalence of psychological burnout among athletes, a state characterized by emotional exhaustion, a diminished sense of achievement, and devaluation of sports participation ( Raedeke and Smith, 2001 ; Gustafsson et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, psychological burnout adversely impacts an athlete’s well-being and performance, as well as team dynamics and cohesion ( Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2016 ).

The advent of positive psychology has shifted focus toward the exploration of how positive mental states and emotions, notably gratitude, can serve as a buffer against athlete burnout. Gratitude, identified as a fundamental virtue within positive psychology, is posited to promote well-being and mitigate symptoms of burnout ( Wood et al., 2009 ). Despite the broad positive outcomes associated with gratitude, such as enhanced positive emotions, well-being, prosocial behavior, and spirituality/religiosity ( McCullough et al., 2002 ), the specific mechanisms through which gratitude impacts burnout among professional athletes remain underexplored, indicating a critical gap in research.

This study aims to address this gap by examining the influence of athletes’ gratitude on burnout within the professional sports context, with a particular emphasis on the sequential mediating roles of the coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and hope. This approach not only seeks to extend the theoretical framework pertaining to gratitude in sports psychology but also endeavors to reveal practical interventions for alleviating athlete burnout. Hence, the significance of this research lies in its potential to deepen our understanding of the role of positive psychology in sports, especially through the lens of gratitude and its mediating effects on preventing and managing athlete burnout.

In summary, this investigation into the effects of gratitude on athlete burnout among professional athletes fills an essential gap in the literature, offering a nuanced understanding of how gratitude, in conjunction with supportive relationships and hope, can form a vital component in the psychological toolkit against burnout, ultimately fostering athletes’ well-being and success in competitive sports.

2 Theoretical background and research hypotheses

Within the competitive sports domain, athlete burnout is characterized as a decrement in psychological functioning, precipitated by the continuous depletion of mental and physiological resources due to internal and external pressures, absent sufficient recovery. Manifestations of this condition include three primary dimensions: emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of personal accomplishment, and a devaluation of sports participation ( Zhang et al., 2006 ). Table 1 presents the archetypal symptoms associated with each dimension. Previous research has demonstrated that burnout can have detrimental effects on athletes’ physical and mental health, potentially impairing performance, undermining social relationships, and leading to a discontinuation of sports participation ( Raedeke and Smith, 2001 ; Zhang, 2010 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ).

Table 1 . A synopsis of typical symptoms of burnout.

Research into athlete burnout has historically employed Smith’s (1986) , viewing burnout as a culmination of chronic stress. Moreover, investigators have deployed various theoretical frameworks to explore this phenomenon, including the Negative Training Stress Response Model, the Identity Development and External Control Model, and the Athletic Commitment Model. The advent of positive psychology has introduced a novel perspective, incorporating constructs of psychological capital to examine the underlying mechanisms of athlete burnout, indicating a critical shift in contemporary research trajectories ( Zhang et al., 2014 ; Ye et al., 2016b ).

Theoretical research suggests that gratitude may help alleviate athlete burnout. Fredrickson (2004) posited that gratitude, a positive emotion, has the potential to broaden individuals’ thought processes and foster creative thinking, as proposed by the Broaden-and-Build Theory. This cognitive broadening can lead to novel approaches in expressing gratitude, reciprocating to others, developing loving and thankful skills, and building friendships and social networks. These resources, in turn, become enduring personal assets that enhance resilience to stress and adversity. Consequently, they are less likely to resort to negative coping strategies such as avoidance, self-blame, substance abuse, or denial, which could mitigate the adverse effects of athlete burnout. Empirical research substantiates the adaptive benefits of gratitude in reducing psychopathological symptoms, such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, significantly improving subjective well-being and self-efficacy, and boosting physical health ( Tennen et al., 2009 ; Wood et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, studies have found that gratitude improves sleep quality, which, in turn, boosts physical health ( Wood et al., 2009 ). It is also a significant predictor of a decrease in symptoms like dizziness and headaches ( Froh et al., 2009 ).

Considering the established research, our study seeks not merely to reaffirm the negative correlation between gratitude and athlete burnout but to delve deeper into this relationship. Specifically, we aim to explore how gratitude interacts with other psychological constructs within the athletic context and its impact on the multifaceted nature of burnout. Therefore, this paper advances the hypothesis:

H1 : Gratitude is a significant negative predictor of athlete burnout, with our study providing further insight into its role and interactions within the context of competitive sports.

Previous studies have shown that the onset and progression of athlete burnout are associated with a spectrum of physiological, psychological, and sociological factors. The coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and hope are recognized as pivotal mediators in how gratitude might affect athlete burnout. CAR involves a dynamic interaction of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral elements between coaches and athletes. Meanwhile, hope refers to the experiential success resulting from the synergistic operation of pathway and agency thought processes during the pursuit of goals, representing cognitive and behavioral inclinations.

The moral affect theory of gratitude highlights the importance of moral motivation, suggesting that feelings of gratitude can lead to increased prosocial behaviors and motivations, such as altruism, care, sharing, and forgiveness. It also prompts a proactive search for opportunities to reciprocate to benefactors ( McCullough et al., 2001 ). Individuals with high levels of gratitude tend to experience fewer interpersonal conflicts and societal obstacles ( Gan, 2012 ). Algoe et al. (2008) examined the impact of gratitude among sorority members and found that greater gratitude in recipients led to better quality in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. Further, Algoe et al. (2012) discovered that expressions of gratitude in one romantic partner significantly enhanced the perceived responsiveness of the other partner, which was predictive of relationship improvements over a six-month trajectory.

In the field of athletics, athletes with high levels of gratitude seek to understand their coaches’ perspectives during crises within the CAR. They appreciate the coach’s dedication and efforts and seek to mend the relationship ( Wang et al., 2014 ). Qualitative studies on athlete burnout have identified that a harmonious CAR, characterized by effective communication, active listening, and empathetic concern from the coach, can provide athletes with greater social support, thereby mitigating the negative impact of burnout attributed to sports activity ( Cresswell and Eklund, 2005 ). Moreover, positive social interactions, such as valuable advice, timely encouragement, and assistance, have been found to correlate negatively with sports-related athlete burnout ( DeFreese and Smith, 2014 ). In summary, gratitude not only promotes harmonious interpersonal relationships but also fosters the development of the CAR, which is closely associated with athlete burnout. Consequently, this paper proposes the hypothesis:

H2 : The CAR mediates the effect of athletes' gratitude on their burnout.

The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions posits that gratitude can lead individuals to positively assess their present and future, fostering prosocial behaviors that foster social cohesion and strengthen interpersonal resources ( Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005 ). These interpersonal resources, in turn, expand individuals’ coping strategies when faced with stress, aligning with the pathways thinking aspect of hope theory. Additionally, gratitude reinforces motivation; individuals with high levels of gratitude report greater recognition of social support from others, including parental upbringing, coaching, and friendship. This increased recognition is manifested as sustained passion and motivation during training and competitions, in harmony with the agency thinking aspect of hope theory. Individuals with high hope levels, who exhibit strong agency and pathways thinking, tend to view stressors as challenges and are more likely to engage in positive actions ( Snyder, 2000 ). Furthermore, research indicates that hope alleviates burnout among college athletes, enhances achievement motivation, and stimulates learning interest ( Xie et al., 2016 ). In sports, hope is inversely related to the three dimensions of burnout; athletes with higher hope levels report significantly lower burnout scores. Moreover, hope not only directly reduces sports-related burnout but also serves as an indirect influence through the mediating effects of positive emotions and perceived stress (Gustafsson, 2010; Gustafsson et al., 2011 ). Therefore, this paper proposes the hypothesis:

H3 : Hope mediates the relationship between athletes' gratitude and their burnout.

Hope emerges from stable and secure attachment relationships and is closely connected to social connectedness ( Snyder, 2002 ). As social groups develop, they commonly establish ideologies and norms. To align with the group’s collective standards, individuals engage in cooperation within the group and intra-group competition, which simultaneously enhances their agency thinking. Additionally, within social groups, members offer mutual support and actionable advice, aiding in the identification of concrete methods to achieve collective goals, thus enhancing individuals’ pathways thinking. A harmonious and effective CAR promotes more positive and effective communication ( Jowett, 2012 ). Such a relationship significantly increases an athlete’s hope level and, through hope, increases satisfaction with athletic performance while reducing the negative effects of external pressures ( Ye, 2016b ). There is a clear link between athletes’ gratitude and the CAR, which affects the athletes’ hope level, and consequently, hope predicts athlete burnout. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H4 : The CAR and hope act as serial mediators between athletes' gratitude and athlete burnout.

3.1 Research design and sampling method

This study adopted a convenience sampling strategy to select athletes from national training teams and professional sports teams across varied provinces and cities, including Beijing, Hubei, Zhejiang, Heilongjiang, Guangdong, and Yunnan. In total, 502 questionnaires were distributed, and 483 valid responses were received, resulting in an effective response rate of 96.2%. The participant demographic was composed of 251 males (52.0%) and 228 females (47.2%), with gender information missing for 4 participants. Additionally, 11 participants (2.3%) did not specify their competition level. The average age of the athletes was 19.24 years (SD = 3.99), and the average training duration was 6.86 years (SD = 3.55). Athletes’ competition levels varied, including secondary level (40 participants), first level (218 participants), national master level (180 participants), and international master level (34 participants), with 11 participants not specifying their level.

The survey included a broad range of sports disciplines, such as marathon, martial arts, gymnastics, shooting, archery, clay pigeon shooting, cycling, triathlon, modern pentathlon, swimming, canoeing, middle and long-distance running, weightlifting, basketball, volleyball, boxing, judo, taekwondo, wrestling, high jump, tennis, and equestrian. The convenience sampling method facilitated rapid and efficient access to a diverse group of professional athletes, offering a practical solution amidst constraints of resources and time, despite the potential limitations in statistical representation inherent to this sampling method. Our direct engagement with athletes at their training bases and schools enhanced the depth and authenticity of the collected data.

3.2 Data collection procedure

The data collection process was rigorously designed to adhere to ethical guidelines, safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of participant data. This study received ethical clearance from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Central China Normal University, emphasizing our commitment to conducting research with the utmost integrity and respect for participant welfare. Data collection was executed on a team basis using a group testing method, allowing for an extensive reach across a diverse range of athletes. Prior to data collection, explicit consent was obtained from both team leaders and athletes, ensuring their informed participation. Furthermore, participants were compensated for their valuable contribution to the research.

The task of collecting data was entrusted to graduate students specializing in sports psychology, all of whom had received rigorous training to perform this role efficiently. This team’s expertise guaranteed the precision and effectiveness of the data collection process. To protect participant privacy, all questionnaires were completed anonymously. Participants were assured of the strict confidentiality of their responses, which would be used solely for scientific analysis. Detailed instructions were provided to encourage thorough and independent responses, thus ensuring the data’s authenticity and reliability. Each participant was given approximately 20 min to complete the questionnaire, which was then immediately collected on-site to maintain data integrity.

Employing an on-site data collection strategy not only improved the response rate but also the accuracy and reliability of the collected data, thereby significantly enhancing the research’s quality and integrity. Our systematic approach in recruiting participants actively engaged in structured training environments, coupled with a rigorous review of returned questionnaires, further solidified the validity of our findings. This meticulous attention to ethical standards and data collection methodology underscores our dedication to producing credible and ethically sound research outcomes.

3.3 Measures

3.3.1 gratitude questionnaire.

The study employed the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ) as adapted by Chen and Kee (2008) , which was originally developed by McCullough et al. (2002) . This scale employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), where higher scores reflect higher levels of gratitude. The questionnaire is composed of 5 items, including “Listing everyone I feel grateful to during my sporting career would be a lengthy process,” with the third item being reverse-scored. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the following results: χ2/df = 12.34, indicating good structural validity for this version of the questionnaire. The original English version of the GQ had a reliability coefficient of 0.87 ( McCullough et al., 2002 ). In the present study, the overall reliability of the Gratitude Scale was found to be 0.80, indicating good reliability. The GQ total score showed a moderate correlation with several theoretical constructs relevant to the scale (namely happiness, optimism, agreeableness, and extraversion), which suggests good criterion-related validity ( Chen et al., 2009 ).

3.3.2 Athlete burnout questionnaire

The study utilized the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ) in its form revised by Zhang et al. (2010) , which was originally developed by Raedeke and Smith (2001) . The scale employs a Likert 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always), where higher scores denote higher levels of psychological burnout, and lower scores reflect lower levels. It comprises 15 items, such as “Training tires me out so much that I do not have the energy to do other things,” and “I am unable to concentrate during competitions as I used to,” and includes three subscales: emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and devaluation in sport. These subscales account for 61.66% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis utilizing the maximum likelihood estimation on a first-order three-factor model of the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire yielded: χ 2 /df = 4.29, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05, GFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90, suggesting good construct validity for this iteration. The subscales’ reliabilities for emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and sport devaluation, as translated into Chinese by Lu et al. (2006) , were 0.88, 0.87, and 0.70, respectively. The scale’s overall reliability was measured at 0.78 in this study, with the subscales for emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of accomplishment, and sport devaluation recording reliabilities of 0.78, 0.78, and 0.62 respectively, confirming good reliability. The scale demonstrated a significant positive relationship against the Chinese version of the ABQ translated by Lu et al. (2006) , supporting good criterion-related validity.

3.3.3 CAR questionnaire

The study employed the CAR Questionnaire (CART-Q) following the revisions of Zhong and Wang (2007) , adapted from the Greek version of the CART-Q developed by Jowett and Ntoumanis (2004) . This questionnaire utilizes a Likert 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat agree; 4 = mainly agree; 5 = strongly agree) for scoring, with higher scores signifying more positive coach-athlete relationships (CARs) and lower scores denoting less satisfactory relationships. It features 15 items, such as “I am loyal to my coach and am willing to maintain a long-term cooperation with him,” and “I am open to my coach’s advice and suggestions,” covering three dimensions: closeness, commitment, and complementarity, which account for 64.525% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed: χ2/df = 4.98, RMSEA = 0.081, SRMR = 0.049, GFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91. The original CAR Questionnaire demonstrated reliabilities for closeness, commitment, complementarity, and compliance of 0.87, 0.82, 0.88, and 0.93, respectively. In this study, the dimensions’ reliabilities were measured at 0.85, 0.86, 0.81, and 0.84, respectively, confirming the questionnaire’s good reliability. The overall scale score demonstrated significant correlations with two criterion items from the Greek version of the CART-Q (0.689 and 0.696), suggesting good criterion-related validity of the translated version of the questionnaire.

3.3.4 Trait hope scale

The Trait Hope Scale (THS), following the revisions by Chen et al. (2009) based on the original scale by Snyder et al. (1991) , was employed in the study. The scale comprises 12 items, such as “I can think of many ways to get out of a bind” and “I have been successful in my athletic career,” and is comprised of two dimensions: agency thinking and pathways thinking. It employs a Likert 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat agree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting greater levels of hope. The confirmatory factor analysis yielded: χ 2 /df = 3.81, RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.042, GFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96. The English version of the THS demonstrated reliabilities across agency and pathways thinking domains of 0.74 and 0.84, respectively. In the current study, the questionnaire exhibited an overall reliability of 0.82, with reliabilities for agency and pathways thinking at 0.69 and 0.78, respectively, and exhibited a test–retest correlation coefficient of 0.80, indicating consistency with the reliability of the English version of the Hope Scale. Validity testing revealed that agency and pathways thinking dimensions of the Hope Scale were significantly positively correlated with a proactive coping approach and significantly negatively correlated with a passive coping style, consistent with international research findings ( Woodward et al., 2006 ), indicating good criterion-related validity of the scale.

3.4 Data analysis

Data were organized, processed, and analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 24.0 software. Beyond descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations, the study primarily employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as the method of data processing, with the significance level established at α = 0.05. While these components—emotional/physical exhaustion, reduced sense of achievement, and negative sports appraisal—are facets of burnout, their distinct contributions must be considered and not aggregated. The utilization of Zhang et al.’s (2010) weighted total score formula for burnout (Burnout Weighted Total Score =  Z -score for Reduced Sense of Achievement × 0.47 +  Z -score for Emotional/Physical Exhaustion × 0.21 +  Z -score for Negative Sports Appraisal × 0.32) facilitated the derivation of the composite burnout score. These scores were additionally subjected to individual analyses for each dimension. The research not only examined the mediating roles of the CAR and hope between gratitude and the composite burnout score but also their intermediary functions between gratitude and the three discrete dimensions of burnout. These analyses elucidated the complex interplay among these variables, contributing to a deeper understanding of athlete burnout.

4.1 Control and test for common method bias

Data were collected through self-report measures in this study, which raises the potential for common method bias. To mitigate this, the administration of the measures included imposing strict procedural controls regarding the data’s confidentiality, anonymity, and exclusive use for scientific research. Furthermore, Harman’s single-factor test was applied for analytic examination ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ; Zhou and Long, 2004 ). This method involved loading all measurement items of the study variables into a single factor to create a one-factor model and contrasting it with the fit indices of an 11-factor model that aligned with the theoretical dimensions. The results indicated that the fit indices for the 11-factor model (χ 2  = 1959.39, df = 979, χ 2 /df = 2.00, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.88) were significantly better than those for the single-factor model (χ 2  = 6208.24, df = 1,034, χ 2 /df = 6.00, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.44, IFI = 0.44, TLI = 0.41), which suggests that a serious common method bias is unlikely in the current study.

4.2 Correlation analysis of gratitude, CAR, hope, and burnout

As presented in Table 2 , upon controlling for demographic variables (gender, age, years of athletic participation, and level of competition), gratitude, CAR, and hope showed a significant negative correlation with burnout. Moreover, gratitude and CAR demonstrated a significant positive correlation with hope, and gratitude was significantly positively correlated with the CAR. The absolute values of the correlation coefficients among the study variables ranged between 0.32 to 0.50, indicating their appropriateness for further analysis. The mean scores for gratitude and the CAR were notably high, potentially reflecting the influence of social desirability effects, while the limited variability could be attributed to a ceiling effect.

Table 2 . Correlation coefficients among gratitude, CAR, hope, and burnout ( N  = 483).

4.3 Examination of the mediating effect of CAR and hope between gratitude and burnout

Following the recommendation of Fang et al. (2012) , the percentile Bootstrap method with bias correction offers superior statistical power compared to the traditional Sobel test. Consequently, this study employed the SPSS macro program PROCESS, developed by Hayes (2013) , 1 and controlled for demographic variables including gender, age, duration of sports participation, and level of athletic competition. Mediation effects were evaluated through a structural equation model, based on 5,000 bootstrap samples to establish 95% confidence intervals.

Preliminary results, as shown in Table 3 , indicated that gratitude maintained a significant positive influence on CAR ( β  = 0.52, p  < 0.001). When gratitude and CAR were predictors of hope, gratitude maintained a significant positive influence ( β  = 0.27, p  < 0.001), and CAR also displayed a significant positive impact ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.001). When gratitude, CAR, and hope were introduced into the regression equation concurrently, each variable exhibited a significant negative predictive influence on burnout ( β  = −0.23, p  < 0.001; β  = −0.21, p  < 0.001; β  = −0.19, p  < 0.001), indicating a significant mediating role of CAR and hope in the relationship between gratitude and burnout.

Table 3 . Regression analysis overview for testing the mediation effects of CAR and hope between gratitude and burnout.

Furthermore, detailed scrutiny of the mediation effects, as presented in Table 4 , showed that the total indirect effects produced by CAR and hope did not include zero within the 95% Bootstrap confidence interval, indicative of a significant mediating effect by the two variables between gratitude and burnout. The mediation effect comprises three indirect effects: (1) The first, generated by the path “Gratitude → CAR → Burnout,” with the confidence interval excluding zero, indicates a significant CAR mediation between gratitude and burnout (−0.11, contributing to 26.83% of the total effect); (2) the second, generated by the path “Gratitude → Hope → Burnout,” with the confidence interval excluding zero, indicates a significant hope mediation between gratitude and burnout (−0.05, contributing to 12.20% of the total effect); and (3) the third, generated by the path “Gratitude → CAR → Hope → Burnout,” with the confidence interval excluding zero, indicates partial mediation by CAR and hope between gratitude and burnout (−0.02, contributing to 4.88% of the total effect). Based on these results, a serial mediation model as depicted in Figure 1 can be constructed, accounting for 25% of the variance in burnout.

Table 4 . Overview of bootstrap analysis for the mediating effects of CAR and hope between gratitude and burnout.

Figure 1 . Mediation model of CAR and hope between gratitude and burnout. Solid lines indicate significant paths; dashed lines indicate non-significant paths.

5 Discussion

This study investigated the association between athlete gratitude and burnout, considering the perspectives of CARs and hope, and the mechanisms underlying this relationship. The findings indicate a significant negative correlation between athlete gratitude and burnout, with additional regression analysis demonstrating that athlete gratitude significantly predicts lower levels of burnout, thereby supporting Hypothesis H1. Athlete gratitude was also identified as being significantly positively correlated with the CAR; subsequently, a strong CAR was observed to significantly predict lower burnout, thus confirming Hypothesis H2. The mediation analysis revealed that the CAR and hope mediate the influence of athlete gratitude on burnout. This mediation effect unfolded via two pathways: the independent mediating role of hope and the sequential mediating effect of the CAR to hope, thereby validating Hypotheses H3 and H4. In summary, all four hypotheses proposed in this study have been corroborated by empirical evidence.

5.1 The direct effects of gratitude on burnout

Gratitude, recognized as a positive and affirming emotion, can broaden an individual’s scope of thought and action. Individuals who habitually practice gratitude tend to focus on the positive and pleasant aspects of life, enhancing their ability to recover from the negative effects of adverse events ( Fredrickson, 2004 ). According to gratitude coping theory, those with a strong propensity for gratitude are more likely to engage in positive coping strategies when faced with challenging or risky situations ( Fredrickson and Cohn, 2008 ). These individuals view everything they have, including life itself, as a gift, meeting life’s challenges with heightened positivity and optimism, which facilitates better social adaptation and well-being ( Wood et al., 2007 , 2008 , 2009 ).

In the context of sports, gratitude can broaden athletes’ cognitive and behavioral patterns, bolster personal resources, and provide the essential material and psychological support necessary to strengthen resilience against setbacks and diminish the negative impact of distressing emotions. This enhancement of psychological well-being contributes to the prevention of burnout. Empirical evidence suggests that athletes’ gratitude leads to greater investment in their sport and adherence to ethical behavior, thereby fostering improved engagement in training and competition, superior performance, and recognition from coaches and peers ( Wang et al., 2014 ; Ye, 2016 ). Additionally, athletes with a pronounced sense of gratitude are more apt to attribute their successes to the collective efforts of their support networks, including their country, family, coaches, and teammates. Confronted with competitive stress or the adversities of life, such athletes typically embrace an optimistic and proactive approach, successfully circumventing negative appraisals in sports.

5.2 The mediating effects of the CAR and hope on the relationship between gratitude and burnout

In the nexus of interpersonal dynamics, the Coach-Athlete Relationship (CAR) acts as a critical bridge. Gratitude fosters the development of a harmonious CAR, which is instrumental in building and sustaining social bonds. The expansive cognitive and behavioral effects of gratitude facilitate the creation and preservation of positive social connections, thereby attracting enhanced social support ( Fredrickson, 2004 ; Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005 ; Wood et al., 2009 ). In the domain of sports, athletes who possess a strong propensity for gratitude can adopt their coaches’ perspectives during crises within the CAR, acknowledging the coaches’ sincere efforts and dedicating themselves to repairing any rifts ( Gan, 2012 ). This propensity toward gratitude also influences coaches, who respond with proactive prosocial behaviors, nurturing the growth of a harmonious rapport. Additionally, the CAR has been shown to inversely predict burnout, with harmonious interactions enabling athletes to maintain robust relationships and emotional connections with coaches, thus mitigating undue interpersonal stress and curbing the onset of burnout symptoms ( Jowett, 2009 ; Adie and Jowett, 2010 ; Tabei et al., 2012 ).

Hope, as elucidated by the broaden-and-build theory, serves as a mediator in the gratitude-burnout relationship. Individuals with a strong disposition toward gratitude are likely to perceive the world more positively and proactively expand their cognitive horizons with an inclusive mindset, thereby effectively managing stress ( Fredrickson, 2004 ; Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005 ). Research by Chen and Chi (2012 , 2015) corroborates that hope and self-confidence are significantly tied to enhanced athletic performance, suggesting that elevated levels of these attributes in college athletes correlate with superior performance outcomes. An augmentation in hope allows individuals to sustain agency and pathways thinking, essential when confronting challenges or stress, safeguarding against negative affectivity and thus forestalling or lessening burnout ( Gustafsson et al., 2010 ). Consequently, psychological interventions targeting burnout could potentially be optimized by concentrating on elevating hope levels, which may improve athletic performance while simultaneously mitigating burnout risks.

5.3 The sequential mediating effects of CAR and hope on the relationship between gratitude and burnout

McCullough et al. (2002) contend that gratitude, conceptualized as a moral emotion, serves as a vital cohesive force within social collectives. Within the context of coach-athlete dyads, a harmonious CAR promotes positive and efficacious interactions that alleviate interpersonal tensions, thereby fortifying athletes’ sense of self-identity, clarifying their motivational direction, and amplifying their satisfaction derived from athletic endeavors. This environment is conducive to fostering a hopeful disposition, an optimistic state that buffers against adverse feelings and behaviors ( Tennen et al., 2009 ; Jowett and Nezlek, 2012 ; Ye et al., 2016a , b ). Gustafsson et al. (2010) further reveal that hope robustly negates the propensity for athlete burnout. The present study indicates that athletes endowed with elevated hope are adept at navigating adversities, utilizing optimal strategies to surmount challenges, and maintaining heightened motivation. Hope is instrumental not only in facilitating success when free from impediments but also in proactively addressing and ameliorating psychological distress in response to stressors and adversities, thereby diminishing manifestations of athlete burnout. In summation, both CAR and hope constitute integral components of a ‘mediatory chain’ that links gratitude to athlete burnout, delineating a complex interplay of psychological constructs that underlie the well-being of athletes.

5.4 Limitations and future research

This study adopts a cross-sectional design, constraining the extent to which causal relationships can be inferred among the examined variables. Recognizing that athlete burnout fluctuates over time, as suggested by Gustafsson et al. (2010) , longitudinal research could offer a more nuanced understanding of its progression. The analysis of the CAR in this study is limited to athletes’ self-reports, omitting coaches’ perspectives, which may provide a more comprehensive overview of the CAR dynamic. Consequently, future studies should consider incorporating matched reports from both coaches and athletes to enrich the understanding of CAR. Methodologically, while the current study constructs a mediation model exploring the interp r mediating roles in the gratitude-burnout nexus, future studies may delve deeper into how gender and sports performance influence these relationships. Our preliminary analyses indicate that these factors might significantly affect the psychological state of athletes. In particular, further research could explore the relationship between technical level and athlete burnout and consider how this relationship may evolve over time.

6 Conclusion

The research findings indicate that gratitude, CAR, and hope are integral in attenuating athlete burnout, serving as potent negative predictors. The sequential mediation model elucidated herein demonstrates that gratitude impacts athlete burnout indirectly through CAR and hope, both individually and in combination. These insights provide a theoretical foundation and practical framework for creating interventions aimed at diminishing athlete burnout. To optimize future intervention strategies, enhancing athletes’ gratitude levels, nurturing harmonious CAR, and fostering hope are pivotal. Such measures could not only mitigate the incidence of burnout but also enrich the overall psychological resilience of athletes, thereby contributing to their well-being and performance longevity.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/supplementary material.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by China University of Geosciences. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.

Author contributions

LD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RF: Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SZ: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. BW: Project administration, Writing – review & editing. LY: Project administration, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Youth Project No. 62307034), the Key Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (23FTYA005), the Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Youth Project No. 2023AFB359), and the Youth Foundation of Humanities and Social Science Research of the Ministry of Education of China (No. 22YJC890005).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ http://www.afhayes.com

Adie, J. W., and Jowett, S. (2010). Meta-perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40, 2750–2773. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00679.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., and Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion 8, 425–429. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Algoe, S. B., and Stanton, A. L. (2012). Gratitude when it is needed most: social functions of gratitude in women with metastatic breast cancer. Emotion 12, 163–168. doi: 10.1037/a0024024

Chen, C.-W., and Chi, L.-K. (2012). Prediction of Hope, confidence, and goal orientations on sports performance among college students. Sports Exerc. Res. 14, 73–81. doi: 10.5297/ser.1401.008

Chen, C.-W., and Chi, L.-K. (2015). The application of hope theory in sport psychology. Bull. Sport Exerc. Psychol. Taiwan 15, 75–94. doi: 10.6497/BSEPT2015.1501.04

Chen, L. H., Chen, M. Y., Kee, Y. H., and Tsai, Y. M. (2009). Validation of the gratitude questionnaire (GQ) in Taiwanese undergraduate students. J. Happiness Stud. 10, 655–664. doi: 10.1007/s10902-008-9112-7

Chen, L. H., and Kee, Y. H. (2008). Gratitude and adolescent athletes’ well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 89, 361–373. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9237-4

Cresswell, S. L., and Eklund, R. C. (2005). Motivation and burnout among top amateur rugby players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37, 469–477. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000155398.71387.C2

Defreese, J. D., and Smith, A. L. (2014). Athlete social support, negative social interactions, and psychological health across a competitive sport season. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 36, 619–630. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0040

Fang, J., Zhang, M.-Q., and Chiou, H.-J. (2012). Mediation analysis and effect size measurement: retrospect and prospect. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 28, 105–111.

Google Scholar

Fredrickson, B. L., and Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognit. Emot. 19, 313–332. doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238

Fredrickson, B. L., and Cohn, M. A. (2008). “Positive emotions” in Handbook of emotions . eds. M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, and L. F. Barrett (New York: Guilford Press), 777–796. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150100.003.0008

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). “Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds” in The psychology of gratitude . eds. R. A. Emmons and M. E. McCullough (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 145–166.

Froh, J. J., Yurkewicz, C., and Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Gratitude and subjective well-being in early adolescence: examining gender differences. J. Adolesc. 32, 633–650. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.006

Gan, Q.-Y. (2012). A research on the relationship between gratitude and interpersonal relation. Sci. Soc. Psychol. 9, 69–73.

Gustafsson, H., DeFreese, J., and Madigan, D. (2017). Athlete burnout: Review and recommendations. Current Opinion in Psychology , 16, 109–113. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.002

Gustafsson, H., Hassmén, P., and Podlog, L. (2010). Exploring the relationship between hope and burnout in competitive sport. J. Sports Sci. 28, 1495–1504. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.521943

Gustafsson, H., Kenttä, G., and Hassmén, P. (2011). Athlete burnout: an integrated model and future research directions. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 4, 3–24. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2010.541927

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Isoard-Gautheur, S., Trouilloud, D., Gustafsson, H., and Guillet-Descas, E. (2016). Associations between the perceived quality of the coach–athlete relationship and athlete burnout: An examination of the mediating role of achievement goals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 22, 210–217. doi: 10.1016/J.PSYCHSPORT.2015.08.003

Johnson, J., Gooding, P. A., Wood, A. M., and Tarrier, N. (2010). Resilience as positive coping appraisals: testing the schematic appraisals model of suicide (SAMS). Behav. Res. Ther. 48, 179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.10.007

Jowett, S. (2009). Factor structure and criterion-related validity of the metaperspective version of the coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 13, 163–177. doi: 10.1037/a0014998

Jowett, S., and Nezlek, J. (2012). Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important outcomes in coach-athlete dyads. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 29, 287–301. doi: 10.1177/0265407511420980

Jowett, S., and Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 14, 245–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x

Liang, L., Hou, Z., and Qi, L. (2015). Gratitude and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among Chinese adolescents: direct, mediated, and moderated effects. J. Adolesc. 39, 59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.12.008

Lu, J. H., Chen, L. H., and Cho, K. H. (2006). Revision of Raedeke and Smith’s athlete burnout questionnaire (ABQ): analyses of validity and reliability of Chinese version. Physic. Educ. J. 39, 83–94. doi: 10.6222/pej.3903.200609.1107

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., and Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The grateful disposition: a conceptual and empirical topography. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 112–127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., and Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychol. Bull. 127, 249–266. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Raedeke, T. D., and Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 23, 281–306. doi: 10.1123/jsep.23.4.281

Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. J. Sport Psychol. 8, 36–50. doi: 10.1123/jsp.8.1.36

Snyder, C. R. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of Hope . New York: Academic Press.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: rainbows in the mind. Psychol. Inq. 13, 249–275. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 570–585. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570

Sun, G., and Zhang, L. (2013). Effect of self-determined motivation on athlete burnout: evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal study. China Sport Sci. 33, 21–28. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-677X.2013.07.003

Tabei, Y., Fletcher, D., and Goodger, K. (2012). The relationship between organizational stressors and athlete burnout in soccer players. J. Clin. Sport Psychol. 6, 146–165. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.6.2.146

Tennen, H., Cloutier, M. M., Wakefield, D. B., Hall, C. B., and Brazil, K. (2009). The buffering effect of hope on clinicians' behavior: a test in pediatrics. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 28, 554–576. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.5.554

Wang, B., Ye, L., Wu, M., Feng, T., and Peng, X. (2014). Effects of gratitude on athlete engagement: mediation of coach-athlete relationship. J. Beijing Sport Univ. 37, 85–90. doi: 10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2014.09.014

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., and Linley, P. A. (2007). Coping style as a psychological resource of grateful people. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 26, 1076–1093. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.9.1076

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., Lloyd, J., and Atkins, S. (2009). Gratitude influences sleep through the mechanism of pre-sleep cognitions. J. Psychosom. Res. 66, 43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.09.002

Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., and Joseph, S. (2008). A social-cognitive model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion 8, 281–290. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.281

Woodward, J. T., Feldman, D. B., and Cheavens, J. S. (2006). Hope in cognitive psychotherapies: on working with client strengths. J. Cogn. Psychother. 20, 135–145. doi: 10.1891/jcop.20.2.135

Xie, D., Zhao, Z., Duan, W., and Hu, W. (2016). The application, characteristic, and inspiration of hopeful thinking in the clinical area. J. Psychol. Sci. 3, 741–747. doi: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20160334

Ye, L., Wang, B., and Liu, Z. (2016a). The effect of coach-athlete relationship on sport performance satisfaction: serial multiple mediating effect of hope and athlete engagement. China Sport Sci. 36, 40–48. doi: 10.16469/j.css.201607005

Ye, L., Wang, B., and Ma, H. (2016b). Concept, theoretical models, and research prospects of athlete burnout. J. Chengdu Sport Univ. 42, 83–88. doi: 10.15942/j.jcsu.2016.01.016

Ye, N. (2016). Effect of ethical coaching on Athletes' sportsmanship: a moderated mediation model. J. Wuhan Institute Physic. Educ. 50, 66–69. doi: 10.15930/j.cnki.wtxb.2016.11.010

Zhang, L. (2010). Seven directions of psychological research: taking exercise-induced mental fatigue as an example. China Sport Sci. 30, 3–12. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-677X.2010.10.001

Zhang, L., Lin, L., and Zhao, F. (2006). The nature, causes, diagnosis, and control of exercise mental fatigue. China Sport Sci. 26, 49–56. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-677X.2006.11.008

Zhang, L., Li, S., and Liu, Y. (2014). A review of the progress made in theoretical researches on kinetic mental fatigue. J. Phys. Educ. 1, 98–103. doi: 10.16237/j.cnki.cn44-1404/g8.2014.01.024

Zhang, L. W., and Mao, Z. X. (2010). Manual for commonly used psychological scales in sports science (2nd ed.). Beijing: Beijing Sport University Press.

Zhong, R.-S., and Wang, D. (2007). A cross-culture validity of coach-athlete relationship questionnaire. J. Wuhan Institute Physic. Educ. 41, 36–39. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-520X.2007.04.008

Zhou, H., and Long, L. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 12, 942–950. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018

Keywords: athlete burnout, gratitude, coach–athlete relationship, hope, positive psychology

Citation: Dong L, Zou S, Fan R, Wang B and Ye L (2024) The influence of athletes’ gratitude on burnout: the sequential mediating roles of the coach–athlete relationship and hope. Front. Psychol . 15:1358799. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1358799

Received: 20 December 2023; Accepted: 04 April 2024; Published: 24 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Dong, Zou, Fan, Wang and Ye. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rong Fan, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Science & Research
• Science and Research Special Topics
• Advancing Regulatory Science

Recall of patient-reported symptoms and function in episodic disease/conditions, specifically temporomandibular disorders

CERSI Collaborators: Triangle CERSI: Antonia Bennett, PhD; Theresa Coles, PhD; Pei Feng Lim, DDS; Lesley Skalla, PhD; Laura Mkumba, MSc; Deborah Usinger, BA.

FDA Collaborators: Caiyan Zhang; Jeffery Toy; Beth Stirling; Andrew Steen; Devon Allison; Fraser Bocell; Lexie Perreras; Eva Rorer; Srinivas Nandkumar

CERSI Subcontractors: Flying Buttress Associates- Jeph Herrin, PhD

CERSI In-Kind Collaborators: OptumLabs - William Crown, PhD; University of San Francisco - Sanket Dhruva, MD

Non-Federal Entity Collaborators: Johnson and Johnson- Karla Childers, MSJ, Paul Coplan, ScD, MBA, Stephen Johnston, MSc

Project Start Date: September 1, 2023

Regulatory Science Framework

Charges : Modernize Development & Evaluation of FDA-Regulated Products; Clinical Outcome Assessment Topic Area : Substance Use & Misuse-->

Regulatory Science Challenge

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires ask patients about their symptoms and how their condition may interfere with activities of daily living (functional limitations). This information can be important inputs when evaluating medical products, for example, for medical device safety and effectiveness. Sometimes, the questions ask patients to remember and report the information within a certain time frame. For example, “How do you feel now?”, “How do you feel in the past 7 days”, “How do you feel in the last month?”. This time frame is the “recall period.” The recall period needs to be long enough for a patient’s recollection to be complete, but also short enough for patients to more easily remember information. For conditions like temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) where symptoms might vary over time, the appropriate recall period for TMD PRO questionnaires is unclear.

Project Description and Goals

Patients with conditions like TMD may have symptoms that vary over time in how intense or frequent they are and how much they interfere with activities of daily living. This project aims to find the best ways to measure these patient-reported symptoms and functional limitations. Investigators will first look at results of scientific studies to see what is already known about recall periods for TMD symptoms and TMD PRO questionnaires. Then, investigators will survey adult TMD patients and clinicians who treat TMD to learn more about the patterns and timing of symptoms and functional limitations that are common in TMDs. A diverse sample of patients will be surveyed, with a mix of age, gender, race, and disease length and severity. Clinicians will have a wide range of specialties and relevant experience with treating TMD. Results will be analyzed and serve as a basis for developing recall period recommendations for TMD symptoms and functional limitations.

Research Outcomes/Results

Two hundred and twenty-three patients with a mean age of 65 years completed the survey. These patients preferred a higher chance of good biopsy outcomes, and a lower chance of erectile dysfunction caused by the treatment and urinary incontinence after treatment. The patients stated in the survey that they are willing to accept:

• a 15.1%-point increase in erectile dysfunction caused by the treatment to achieve a 10%-point increase in a good biopsy outcome after HIFU ablation, and
• an 8.5%-point increase in urinary incontinence for a 10%-point increase in a good biopsy.

Also, further analysis revealed that patients who thought their cancer was more aggressive were more willing to tolerate urinary incontinence. Younger men were willing to tolerate less erectile dysfunction risk than older men. Respondents with a greater than college level of education were less willing to tolerate erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence.

Research Impacts

Incorporating patient preference information into decisions that FDA makes about regulating devices is one of the major goals of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Study findings show that patients prefer specific outcomes related to prostate ablation therapies like HIFU. The study results may help inform the design and regulation of current and future prostate tissue ablation devices by providing information about outcomes that patients most desire.

Publications

• PMID: 34677594; Citation: Wallach JD, Deng Y, McCoy RG, Dhruva SS, Herrin J, Berkowitz A, Polley EC, Quinto K, Gandotra C, Crown W, Noseworthy P, Yao X, Shah ND, Ross JS, Lyon TD. Real-world Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Degarelix vs Leuprolide for Prostate Cancer Treatment.  JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(10):e2130587. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30587 .
• PMID: 36191949; Citation: Deng Y, Polley EC, Wallach JD, Dhruva SS, Herrin J, Quinto K, Gandotra C, Crown W, Noseworthy P, Yao X, Lyon TD, Shah ND, Ross JS, McCoy RG. Emulating the GRADE trial using real world data: retrospective comparative effectiveness study. BMJ . 2022 Oct 3;379:e070717. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070717 .

Replacing Animal Testing with Stem Cell-Organoids : Advantages and Limitations

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Guiyoung Park 1 ,
• Yeri Alice Rim 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Yeowon Sohn 5 ,
• Yoojun Nam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4583-3455 5 , 6 &
• Ji Hyeon Ju 2 , 3 , 4 , 6  

347 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Various groups including animal protection organizations, medical organizations, research centers, and even federal agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are working to minimize animal use in scientific experiments. This movement primarily stems from animal welfare and ethical concerns. However, recent advances in technology and new studies in medicine have contributed to an increase in animal experiments throughout the years. With the rapid increase in animal testing, concerns arise including ethical issues, high cost, complex procedures, and potential inaccuracies.

Alternative solutions have recently been investigated to address the problems of animal testing. Some of these technologies are related to stem cell technologies, such as organ-on-a-chip, organoids, and induced pluripotent stem cell models. The aim of the review is to focus on stem cell related methodologies, such as organoids, that can serve as an alternative to animal testing and discuss its advantages and limitations, alongside regulatory considerations.

Although stem cell related methodologies has shortcomings, it has potential to replace animal testing. Achieving this requires further research on stem cells, with potential societal and technological benefits.

Graphical Abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

The need to develop a framework for human-relevant research in India: Towards better disease models and drug discovery

Organoids in domestic animals: with which stem cells?

Use of Large Animal Models for Regenerative Medicine

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Historically, animal models have contributed substantially to the advancement and study of vaccines, surgical techniques, and various scientific experiments [ 1 ]. However, owing to the problems associated with animal testing, researchers are now questioning whether animal models and tests are the best options for these procedures. Growing animal testing is ethically concerning amid scientific evolution. According to the Humane Society International Organization, more than 100 million animals are killed annually worldwide for scientific purposes (Humane Society International). The animals used vary depending on their traits and include rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, zebrafish, swine [ 2 , 3 ].

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced animal testing is no longer mandatory safety approval of products [ 4 ]. However, products that are used on the human body still require safety testing. In other words, testing for toxicity, compatibility, and safety is compulsory for products; however, animal testing is unnecessary for conducting these tests. In response, research facilities and companies have introduced alternatives such as computer simulations and in silico models. Stem cell therapy has gained popularity throughout the medical field, and various studies are underway to gain deeper knowledge [ 5 ]. With the emergence of this stem cell-based test, alternative methods have also arisen, potentially offering to become a replacement for animal testing.

When comparing test options, alternatives offer more beneficial attributes than animal testing. Non-animal tests are cost-effective, less time-consuming, and simpler procedures than animal tests [ 6 ]. However, most research institutions use animal models. This is because animal testing has been a longstanding experimental approach for decades [ 7 , 8 ]. Efforts are being made to replace animal testing with the use of human cells, as animal testing results often exhibit interspecies differences with humans, thus lacking the ability to reliably predict clinical outcomes. Application of advancing stem cell technology continue, but completely replacing animal experimentation poses significant challenges. Therefore, it is important to conduct further studies to advance the science of alternative testing methods. This review aimed to summarize the use of stem cell technology as an alternative to animal testing and discuss its advantages and limitations.

Current State of Animal Testing

Uses of animal testing.

Animal testing has been used for decades, and in the 21st century, the number of tests has increased considerably [ 2 ]. With approximately 100 million animals used for testing annually worldwide, science has been rapidly evolving. The primary function of animal testing is to test drugs, their toxicity, and their compatibility with the human body to ensure safe use. Hence, pre-launch testing is crucial. Companies and research facilities must subject their products to clinical trials before introducing them to potential customers.

Neurological disorder such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s have also been modeled in animals to understand their mechanisms and to determine suitable treatments [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. For instance, in the case of Parkinson’s disease, various animal models have been employed, including Caenorhabditis elegans, Zebrafish, and mice. Additionally, genetically modified mice carrying mutations associated with proteins like α-synuclein, Parkin, Pink1, and LRRK2, as well as mice induced with α-Synuclein Pre-Formed Fibril (PFF), are utilized to assess dopaminergic neuronal loss and investigate changes in α-synuclein aggregation. In Alzheimer’s disease, transgenic mice carrying mutations associated with familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD), such as the 5xFAD model, are commonly used. These models allow for the evaluation of amyloid beta reduction through histological methods and the assessment of drug efficacy using behavioral tests like the Maze, providing insights into underlying disease mechanisms. Animals utilized as disease models contribute significantly to our comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms behind various illnesses, facilitating our grasp of these conditions. Research conducted using these animal disease models has indeed contributed to the discovery and development of treatments. However, it’s scientifically crucial to acknowledge that these animal models often present disparities in lifespans compared to humans and may not entirely mirror the intricate etiology of human diseases. Additionally, while animal experimentation is utilized for various conditions such as cancer, diabetes mellitus, and traumatic brain injury, it’s constrained by its inability to fully capture the nuances of the human immune system and intricate disease mechanisms (Table  1 ).

In addition to modeling diseases, animals are also used to test cosmetics or healing rates of products. In the cosmetics industry, animals are typically used to test skin or eye irritation to assess the safety of these products in humans [ 17 , 18 ]. The Draize test, developed in 1944 to test for such hazards in rabbits [ 19 ], is used to test products such as drugs and balms for wound healing. It involves creating wounds on animals to gauge recovery rates [ 16 ].

Related laws, Guidelines, and Principles

As of 2023, current regulations state that the FDA no longer deems animal tests necessary for evaluating product safety [ 4 ]. This enables companies and research facilities to explore possible non-animal testing when obtaining product approval. Additionally, out of 195 countries worldwide, only 42 have laws or regulations limiting animal testing for products (The Humane Society). Animal testing laws have been implemented by banning animal testing or limiting its use during testing. Europe completely banned cosmetics tested on animal testing in 2013 [ 3 , 20 , 21 ]. This demonstrates a push to limit animal testing; however, the movement remains ineffective because of the absence of laws against animal testing in most countries.

Guidelines for animal experimentation and clinical trials for drug development and safety testing have varied procedures among companies and researchers up to now. So, the Guidance for Industry for Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research provides guidelines for the safety assessment of products compiled from regulatory standards of several countries. According to these guidelines, preclinical trial researchers should consider factors such as animal species, age, delivery method (dosage, administration, treatment regimen, etc.), and test material stability [ 22 ] (Fig. 1 ).

( A ) Procedure of new drug approval as stated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In the preclinical research stage, small, medium, and large animals are usually used for testing new drugs. ( B ) iPSCs that can replacing animal testing. PBMCs or fibroblasts are reprogrammed to iPSCs and subsequently differentiated into target modeling cells such as neurons, cardiomyocytes, and hepatocytes. ( C ) iPSC-derived 3D organoids enable in vitro efficacy and safety testing. Organ-on-a-chip embedded with organoids used in in vitro tests, created using BioRender

The FDA has also provided a drug development process that includes these steps. The first step in drug development is discovering and researching a new drug (discovery and development stage). The second stage is preclinical research, in which drugs have to undergo a series of animal tests (or alternative tests, if possible) for safety. The FDA strongly suggests that animal preclinical trials follow Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). The main elements of GLP are as follows [ 23 ]: appropriate use of qualified personnel, quality assurance, appropriate use of facility and care for animals, proper operating procedures for animals used in trial, individual animal data collection and evaluation, testing product properly handled and analyzed, study proceeds with an approved protocol, data should be collected as outlined in the protocol, and full report prepared after procedures.

To enhance clinical translation, reproducibility issues in preclinical trials, such as biased allocation, insufficient controls, and lack of interdisciplinary, uncharacterized, or poorly characterized supplies [ 24 ]. The third step involves clinical testing on humans to assess safety and efficacy. The fourth and fifth stages comprise FDA post-market safety monitoring for all approved drugs [ 25 ].

Guidelines also suggest the 3R (replacement, reduction, and refinement) principle, which recommends that scientists follow certain criteria during clinical trials. Replacement involves using other testing methods other than animal testing [ 26 ]. In computer models, tissues, or stem cell research, if alternatives to animal testing exist, researchers should prioritize their use. Reduction involves minimizing the number of animal tests [ 26 ]. Questioning the necessity of animal tests during a particular part of our research and reducing their numbers imbues the concept with meaning. Refinement focuses on minimizing stress and providing the best care to animals [ 26 ], including providing proper food, entertainment, and clean well-maintained shelters.

As International efforts for animal replacement methods, research and development into alternative testing methods is already underway in both Europe and the United States, with each regulatory body establishing its own initiatives. In Europe, the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was founded in 1992, and since 2013, the sale of cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals has been completely banned. Moreover, there are plans to expand the scope to include medical devices, health supplements, and pharmaceuticals in the future. In the United States, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) was established in 2000. The objective is to reduce animal testing by 2025 and eliminate mammalian animal testing entirely by 2035 through innovative advancements in alternative testing methodologies. In 2022, amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the United States removed mandatory animal testing requirements in the drug development stage and presented alternative testing methods as viable non-clinical trial options.

Problems/limitations of Animal Testing

A pressing issue with animal testing is the ethical concerns stemming from it. Most studies have demonstrated that these models undergo invasive procedures that often result in pain or even death. Research indicates that animals share pain and emotional capacity with humans [ 27 ]. Thus, sacrificing them for research can appear cruel. Advocates call for equitable treatment, opposing animal testing as inhumane and cruel. Such ethical issues has always followed animal testing and are ongoing [ 28 ].

Moreover, some studies have indicated that animal testing is not an accurate model for medicines or substances, highlighting the need for accurate and efficient testing alternatives that are similar humans. The complexity of human disease mechanisms raises doubts whether animal models can accurately replicate them.

Physiological differences between animals and humans mean a product safe for animals may not guarantee human safety [ 29 ]. Interspecies differences have led to poor results in correlating animal testing with human outcomes, consequently causing several clinical trial failures [ 30 ]. Between 2010 and 2017, clinical trials for drugs had a greater chance of failing phase І, owing to safety and efficacy [ 31 ]. In addition, even if a product passes phase І there is still a 90% rate of failure while undergoing the necessary procedures [ 32 , 33 ]. Prolonged use of animal testing can ultimately endanger humans, as some drugs and products approved through trials were later deemed harmful. Concerns such as high cost and long laborious procedures will be discussed below.

Benefits of Replacing Animal Testing

The main benefits of replacing animal tests with alternatives are as follows: cost-effective, time efficient, less complex testing procedures, and societal benefits.

Stem cell modeling is less expensive than animal testing. The Draize test mentioned before costs approximately $1,800, whereas non-animal testing methods cost considerably less [ 6 ]. Affordable procedures offer renewed chances for past costly research to emerge. A decrease in the cost of procedures would facilitate new drug development, making opportunities for new technologies easier.

Animal testing requires prior preparation that is often complex and time consuming. Several guidelines of various organizations worldwide follow certain principles and procedures. For animal testing, factors such as providing clean and well-maintained shelters, food, necessary supplies for survival, and entertainment are laborious [ 26 ]. Alternatives are time-efficient and less laborious, simpler protocols, and fewer supplies to maintain procedures.

Alternatives to Animal Testing Related to Stem Cells

Organoids are organ-like structures derived from self-organizing stem cells in 3D cell cultures. They exhibit organ-specific characteristics and originate from stem cells undergoing self-organization [ 34 , 35 ]. . They are beneficial over previous 2D cell culture, as they can show near-physiological cellular composition and actions [ 36 ]. Organoids are typically established from embryonic stem cells (ESCs), human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), and adult stem cells [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. The potential of organoids as alternatives stems from their correlation with patient reactions to products such as drugs, indicating that they are a promising for rare diseases where clinical trials are impractical [ 39 ]. Organoids have a wide range of applications and are suitable for studies of infectious diseases, hereditary diseases, and toxicity, and can provide personalized medicine for individual patients [ 38 ].

Recent studies have shown that PSC organoids can form complex brain organoids that are useful for modeling traumatic brain injury [ 15 ]. Organoids derived from PSCs are of various types, including stomach, lung, liver, kidney, cerebral, and thyroid, and can contribute to organ failure or dysfunction. Cancer organoids are cultured from thin tumor sections, which are efficient for studying cancer syndromes [ 34 ]. Organoid studies on Alzheimer’s disease highlight the possibility of using familial or sporadic Alzheimer’s disease induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to model brain activity [ 40 ]. Thyroid follicles derived from hESCs have the potential to be used as organoids to treat hypothyroidism [ 41 ] (Table  2 ). Technology development of 3D bioprinting organoids is underway, promising better productivity. Bioprinting for organoids includes inkjet-based bioprinting, laser-assisted bioprinting, extrusion-based bioprinting, and photo-curing bioprinting [ 42 ]. Ongoing studies are also exploring 3D printing technology using organoids, offering the possibility of creating organs for patient-tailored services and toxicology research.

However, organoids still possess limitations that render them unsuitable tools to replace animal testing. Organoids lack of vasculature structure affects growth and maturation, leading to differences in behavior compared to the original tissue [ 59 ]. This may result in only partial replication, leading to an incomplete disease model [ 38 ]. Moreover, the complexity and heterogeneity of certain organs, such as the brain or immune system, pose challenges for complete replication in organoid models. This inability to replicate such complexity can affect the translatability of findings from organoid studies to clinical applications. Research and experiments involving organoids often require lengthy culture protocols, which can vary depending on the type of organoid being cultivated. In some extreme cases, organoid culture may extend for months or even years, as seen in examples such as intestinal organoids(8 weeks or more), retinal organoids(6 ~ 39 weeks or more), brain organoids(12 weeks or more), and liver organoids(4 ~ 8 weeks or more) [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. Even after going through the lengthy process, there are sometimes a lack of established organoids in sufficient numbers. This limited availability of organoids can hinder the procedure of functional testing, which can lead to insufficient research outcomes. Organoids also lack the intricate network of connections that can be seen in living organisms. Inter-organ communication is crucial when checking metabolic health, and with organoids lacking such an important factor, it is difficult to create treatments for any abnormalities regarding infection and diseases. Organoids also lack a diverse set of cell types, structural organization, and physiological functions in comparison to functioning organs, which limits the ability to accurately replicate disease processes and responses to treatment [ 59 ]. When compared to animal models, organoids fall behind, as animal models offer a broader view of processes for diseases, immune responses, and systemic effects of treatments. Another noteworthy concern arises from the fact that current production technology for organoids under GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) standards has yet to be established.

Quality Control of Organoid

For organoids to serve as suitable models for diseases or experimental purposes, quality control (QC) is essential. Accuracy and consistency in production lead to more precise results, ensuring better therapeutic treatments or modeling. If quality control for organoids isn’t established sufficiently, problems such as inconsistent test results, misinterpretation of existing data, wastage of valuable resources, reproducibility issues, unreliable models, and ethical concerns regarding biomedical studies could arise.

Organoid structures and functions can be assessed through multiple methods. Structural assessment of organoids can be performed using bright-field imaging for both quantitative and qualitative research. Additionally, methods such as immunofluorescent staining, transmission electron microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy are also utilized [ 65 , 66 ]. The functionality of organoids can be assessed through qPCR and single-cell or bulk cell RNA sequencing, which provide quantitation of marker gene expression, revealing cell identity and composition [ 67 ]. Assay methods like ELISA and colorimetric assays are useful for secretome quantification while Luciferase essays help measure enzyme activity [ 65 , 68 ]. Staining methods such as Glycosaminoglycan (GAG) staining(specifically for synovial mesenchymal stromal cell (SMSC) organoids), immunofluorescence staining, and Alizarin red staining mainly help with visualizing components within the organoid [ 65 , 68 , 69 ]. There are also more direct methods like implantation to test the in vivo functions of organoids [ 65 , 70 ] (Table  3 ).

Extracellular microenvironment, which contain such things as soluble bioactive molecules, extracellular matrix, and biofluid flow, contributes to the growth rate and formation of organoids. Given the variation in extracellular microenvironments across different types of organoids, it is imperative to modulate the extracellular microenvironment accordingly for each organoid type. This ensures the production of organoids with consistent quality across different production batches [ 71 ].

Regulations/Applications Regarding Organoids from the FDA

While there aren’t any specific regulations regarding organoids from the FDA(Food and Drug Administrations) as of in the recent years, there are two categories of applications that include framework for cell related therapies, which include organoids. There are two applications, Biologics License Application (BLA) and the Investigational New Drug (IND) Application. The BLA, as stated in the official website of FDA, is a request for permission to introduce and deliver for a biologic product(vaccines, somatic cells, gene therapy, tissues, recombinant therapeutic proteins, organoids, etc.) into interstate commerce. Requirements for a BLA includes applicant information, product/manufacturing information, pre-clinical studies, clinical studies, and labeling. The IND application is a request for authorization to administer an investigation drug or biological product to humans. IND had three types: Investigator IND, Emergency Use IND, and Treatment IND which could fall into two categories being commercial or non-commercial. The IND application must contain the following broad areas of information: Animal Pharmacology and Toxicology studies, Manufacturing Information, Clinical protocols and Investigator Information.

When examining the current ongoing clinical trials( ClinicalTrials.gov ) in the application of organoids, it can be noted that they are being utilized in refractory cancers, osteosarcoma, high-grade glioma, advanced breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. This pertains to the utilization of the organoid platform to investigate the sensitivity to various drugs (chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy) by exposing them to each individual agent (or combination of agents). It is anticipated and ongoing to aid in clinical decisions regarding the optimal treatment option for each patient.

Organ-on-a-chip

Organoid chips(OoC) can be regarded as the outcome of merging biology and microtechnology, serving as microfluidic cell culture devices [ 72 , 73 ]. OoC has the ability to mimic the cellular environment, which leads to an examination of their effects on cell communication with more accessibility and ease. The chips are generally designed by collecting cells (primary cells, transformed cell lines, human ESC, or iPSCs) using equipment with pumps(that enable fluid flow), incubators, sensors, and microscopes to monitor and examine the cells in the system [ 49 , 74 ] (Fig.  1 ). Depending on the type or cell or method cells can be aggregated in matrix or matrixless conditions [ 75 ].

Various types of human organ chips, including the liver, heart, eyes, kidneys, bones, intestines, and skin, are used to simulate the breathing motion. Single-organ chips such as liver-on-a-chip and lung-on-a-chip are useful for observing individual chemical reactions [ 53 ]. There are also multiple organ-on-chip, which are organ-chips connected to a vast system [ 76 ]. The main purpose of multi-organ-on-chips is to simulate the entire body, recognizing that a single organ does not represent the entire human system. Using multiple organ-on-chips connected to one system allows the analysis of how various organs communicate with each other.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) have provided project support for tissue chips for drug screening, including lung-on-a-chip. Additionally, efforts are being made globally to advance the utilization of organoid chips, such as the establishment of the European Organ-on-Chip Society in Europe.

A limitation of OoCs is their complex experimental setup [ 77 ], which can be avoided with clear guidelines or protocols. Cell medium changes also raise concerns about chip environments [ 77 ]. There is also the issue of using animal models to validate OoC systems initially [ 78 ]. To address this, OoC experts recommend forming well-established collaborations with developers, toxicologists, and pharmaceutical companies to explore alternative solutions.

iPSCs(Induced Pluripotent stem Cells)

iPSCs are a recent development in the field of disease modeling. Having traits such as self-renewal and pluripotency, iPSCs can transform into various cells within the human body (Fig.  1 ); thus, reprogramming patient cells creates personalized medicine for specific diseases [ 79 , 80 ]. The ability to produce a large batch of iPSCs with only a small number of patient samples is important [ 81 , 82 ]. The objectives of iPSC models closely align with the 3R principle [ 83 ]. Replacing animal models in research while adhering to reduction and refinement principles is expected to be advantageous.

iPSCs are research to find cures for various diseases and are used as broad disease models (Table  2 ). For example, iPSCs from patients with Parkinson’s disease differentiate into midbrain dopaminergic neurons (DAns) in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc), which can be used to model Parkinson’s disease on a cellular basis [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. For cardiac diseases, which include a decrease in cardiomyocytes that leads to scar formation and ultimately heart function failure, there are existing studies that explore iPSCs for novel therapeutic cures [ 84 ]. iPSC-derived progenitors such as human HCN4 + and human ESC derived ROR2+, CD13+, KDR+, PDGFRα + cells later generate cardiomyocytes [ 47 ]. For cancer modeling using iPSCs, reprogrammed tumor specimens or iPSCs with premalignant or early genetic lesions can show the stages of cancer [ 49 ]. iPSCs from patients that are healthy and those with Alzheimer’s disease differentiate into the main brain cells, modeling the human brain with a functional blood barrier. Further research could drive drug discovery [ 9 ]. Studies of organ failure or dysfunction have shown that human iPSCs are useful. Research on lung regeneration has shown that endogenous and exogenous stem cells mediate therapeutic results [ 50 ]. Another study focused on the use of liver hepatoblasts, which could help alleviate hepatotoxicity through liver development and hepatic differentiation [ 85 ].

However, iPSCs are still in a relatively early developmental phase and have several limitations. Concerns for researchers regarding iPSCs is in vitro culture adaptation and tumorigenicity, the inability to completely reflect in vivo 3D environments, and the variation of differentiated cells depending on the protocol [ 86 , 87 ]. Quality control of differentiated cells and influencing factors are crucial for iPSC researchers, impacting their applicability as medical models or treatments.

Figure 2 Human diagram showing multiple stem cell-related technologies that can be applied to various human organs.

A BioRender diagram depicts diverse stem cell technologies for human organs

Limitations

Stem cell-related methodologies, such as organoids, are a very new technology in the field of animal alternative testing. In the early developmental stage, alternative stem cell models and technologies still require a few years of testing. Animal testing is still used today, owing to its historical role in safety and efficacy assessment. New alternatives have been presented; however, the uncertainty of these methods have caused most researchers to adhere to old protocols. In cases of complex diseases arising from various factors such as cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, and infertility, complete replacement by animal alternative testing methods may still be impractical. In such instances, it is crucial to concurrently employ animal experimentation alongside alternative testing methods utilizing organoids or stem cells to bolster data reliability. As a component of these endeavors, numerous researchers have undertaken disease modeling, such as stroke, utilizing brain organoids and cardiac organoids in in vitro experiments. The solution involves focusing on alternative testing methods [ 88 ]. By transforming old methods and creating alternatives, this shift could be the norm. There has already been a move toward that goal, as the FDA has established a cross-agency working group (The Alternative Methods Working Group) to promote various alternative methods, such as in vivo, in vitro, in silico , or system toxicology modeling [ 89 ]. In the 2021, FDA report titled “Advancing Regulatory Science at FDA,” the most prioritized area is identified as “Advancing Novel Technologies to Improve Predictivity of Non-clinical Studies and Replace, Reduce, and Refine Reliance on Animal Testing.”

Given ongoing research in alternative stem cell-related methods, this appears promising to replace animal testing. These alternatives offer advantages for scientists and the public. However, it is important to acknowledge that iPSCs, organoids, and OoCs each have distinct strengths and limitations. With continued advancements and studies to further understand these issues, these limitations can be avoided.

Data Availability

All data pertaining to this manuscript are included within the article.

Abbreviations

Food and Drug Administration

organ-on-chip

induced pluripotent stem cell

pluripotent stem cell

Embryonic stem cell

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, GLP, Good Laboratory Practice

Dopaminergic neurons

Substantia Nigra pars compacta

Robinson, N. B., et al. (2019). The current state of animal models in research: A review. International Journal of Surgery , 72 , 9–13.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ericsson, A. C., Crim, M. J., & Franklin, C. L. (2013). A brief history of animal modeling. Missouri Medicine , 110 (3), 201–205.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Balls, M. (2022). Alternatives to Laboratory animals: Trends in replacement and the three rs. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , 50 (1), 10–26.

Han, J. J. (2023). FDA modernization Act 2.0 allows for alternatives to animal testing. Artificial Organs , 47 (3), 449–450.

Deinsberger, J., Reisinger, D., & Weber, B. (2020). Global trends in clinical trials involving pluripotent stem cells: A systematic multi-database analysis. Npj Regenerative Medicine , 5 (1), 15.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meigs, L., et al. (2018). Animal testing and its alternatives - the most important omics is economics. Altex , 35 (3), 275–305.

Horejs, C. (2021). Organ chips, organoids and the animal testing conundrum. Nat Rev Mater , 6 (5), 372–373.

Veening-Griffioen, D. H., et al. (2021). Tradition, not science, is the basis of animal model selection in translational and applied research. ALTEX , 38 (1), 49–62.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Penney, J., Ralvenius, W. T., & Tsai, L. H. (2020). Modeling Alzheimer’s disease with iPSC-derived brain cells. Molecular Psychiatry , 25 (1), 148–167.

Khan, E., Hasan, I., & Haque, M. E. (2023). Parkinson’s Disease: Exploring Different Animal Model Systems . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 24(10).

Chia, S. J., Tan, E. K., & Chao, Y. X. (2020). Historical Perspective: Models of Parkinson’s Disease . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 21(7).

Li, Z., et al. (2021). Application of animal models in Cancer Research: Recent progress and future prospects. Cancer Manag Res , 13 , 2455–2475.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kottaisamy, C. P. D., et al. (2021). Experimental animal models for diabetes and its related complications—a review. Laboratory Animal Research , 37 (1), 23.

King, A. J. (2012). The use of animal models in diabetes research. British Journal of Pharmacology , 166 (3), 877–894.

Ramirez, S. (2021). Modeling traumatic Brain Injury in Human Cerebral organoids . Cells , 10(10).

Grada, A., Mervis, J., & Falanga, V. (2018). Research Techniques made simple: Animal models of Wound Healing. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology , 138 (10), 2095–2105e1.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McNamee, P., et al. (2009). A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: Eye irritation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology , 54 (2), 197–209.

Macfarlane, M., et al. (2009). A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: Skin irritation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology , 54 (2), 188–196.

York, M., & Steiling, W. (1998). A critical review of the assessment of eye irritation potential using the Draize rabbit eye test. Journal of Applied Toxicology , 18 (4), 233–240.

Fentem, J. H. (2023). The 19th FRAME Annual lecture, November 2022: Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Innovation Will be achieved by Regulatory Use of Modern Safety Science, not by more animal testing. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , 51 (2), 90–101.

Daneshian, M., et al. (2015). Animal use for science in Europe. Altex , 32 (4), 261–274.

Center for Drug Evaluation and, R., R. Center for Biologics Evaluation and, and H. International Conference on, Guidance for industry: S6 preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals (1997). Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

Centanni, J. M. (2017). Chap. 2 - Preclinical Animal Testing requirements and considerations . Mesenchymal stromal cells (pp. 37–60). Academic. S. Viswanathan and P. Hematti, Editors.

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Kim, B. Y. S., & Trounson, A. (2018). How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation. Nat Biomed Eng , 2 (11), 797–809.

Van Norman, G. A. (2016). Drugs, devices, and the FDA: Part 1: An overview of approval processes for drugs. JACC Basic Transl Sci , 1 (3), 170–179.

Liebsch, M., et al. (2011). Alternatives to animal testing: Current status and future perspectives. Archives of Toxicology , 85 (8), 841–858.

Kiani, A. K., et al. (2022). Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene , 63 (2 Suppl 3), E255–E266.

Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharm J , 23 (3), 223–229.

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 24 (4), 407–419.

Van Norman, G. A. (2020). Limitations of Animal studies for Predicting toxicity in clinical trials: Part 2: Potential Alternatives to the use of animals in preclinical trials. JACC Basic Transl Sci , 5 (4), 387–397.

Dowden, H., & Munro, J. (2019). Trends in clinical success rates and therapeutic focus. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery , 18 (7), 495–496.

Takebe, T., Imai, R., & Ono, S. (2018). The current status of Drug Discovery and Development as originated in United States Academia: The influence of Industrial and academic collaboration on Drug Discovery and Development. Clinical and Translational Science , 11 (6), 597–606.

Sun, D., et al. (2022). Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it? Acta Pharm Sin B , 12 (7), 3049–3062.

Dutta, D., Heo, I., & Clevers, H. (2017). Disease modeling in stem cell-derived 3D Organoid systems. Trends in Molecular Medicine , 23 (5), 393–410.

Wang, X. (2019). Stem cells in tissues, organoids, and cancers. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences , 76 (20), 4043–4070.

Li, M., & Izpisua Belmonte, J. C. (2019). Organoids - Preclinical models of Human Disease. New England Journal of Medicine , 380 (6), 569–579.

Rookmaaker, M. B., et al. (2015). Development and application of human adult stem or progenitor cell organoids. Nature Reviews Nephrology , 11 (9), 546–554.

Clevers, H. (2016). Modeling Development and Disease with Organoids. Cell , 165 (7), 1586–1597.

Schutgens, F., & Clevers, H. (2020). Human organoids: Tools for understanding Biology and Treating diseases. Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease , 15 , 211–234.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barak, M., et al. (2022). Human iPSC-Derived neural models for studying Alzheimer’s Disease: From neural stem cells to cerebral organoids. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports , 18 (2), 792–820.

Romitti, M., et al. (2022). Transplantable human thyroid organoids generated from embryonic stem cells to rescue hypothyroidism. Nature Communications , 13 (1), 7057.

Ren, Y., et al. (2021). Developments and opportunities for 3D Bioprinted Organoids. Int J Bioprint , 7 (3), 364.

Laperle, A. H., et al. (2020). iPSC modeling of young-onset Parkinson’s disease reveals a molecular signature of disease and novel therapeutic candidates. Nature Medicine , 26 (2), 289–299.

Avazzadeh, S. (2021). Modelling Parkinson’s Disease: iPSCs towards Better Understanding of Human Pathology . Brain Sci , 11(3).

Stoddard-Bennett, T., & Reijo Pera, R. (2019). Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease through Personalized Medicine and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells . Cells , 8(1).

Funakoshi, S., & Yoshida, Y. (2021). Recent progress of iPSC technology in cardiac diseases. Archives of Toxicology , 95 (12), 3633–3650.

Matsa, E., Burridge, P. W., & Wu, J. C. (2014). Human stem cells for modeling heart disease and for drug discovery. Science Translational Medicine , 6 (239), 239ps6.

Hnatiuk, A. P., et al. (2021). Human iPSC modeling of heart disease for drug development. Cell Chem Biol , 28 (3), 271–282.

Papapetrou, E. P. (2016). Patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells in cancer research and precision oncology. Nature Medicine , 22 (12), 1392–1401.

Aboul-Soud, M. A. M., Alzahrani, A. J., & Mahmoud, A. (2021). Induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPSCs)-Roles in Regenerative therapies, Disease Modelling and Drug Screening . Cells , 10(9).

Sun, W., et al. (2019). Organ-on-a-Chip for Cancer and Immune organs modeling. Adv Healthc Mater , 8 (15), e1900754.

Wang, Y., et al. (2020). Dantrolene ameliorates impaired neurogenesis and synaptogenesis in Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Anesthesiology , 132 (5), 1062–1079.

Beckwitt, C. H., et al. (2018). Liver ‘organ on a chip’. Experimental Cell Research , 363 (1), 15–25.

Shi, W., et al. (2021). Design and evaluation of an in vitro mild traumatic brain Injury modeling System using 3D printed Mini Impact device on the 3D cultured human iPSC derived neural progenitor cells. Adv Healthc Mater , 10 (12), e2100180.

Lee, J., et al. (2020). Hair-bearing human skin generated entirely from pluripotent stem cells. Nature , 582 (7812), 399–404.

Jung, S. Y., et al. (2022). Wnt-activating human skin organoid model of atopic dermatitis induced by Staphylococcus aureus and its protective effects by Cutibacterium acnes. iScience , 25 (10), 105150.

Risueño, I., et al. (2021). Skin-on-a-chip models: General overview and future perspectives. APL Bioeng , 5 (3), 030901.

Aghmiuni, A. I., & Keshel, S. H. (2023). Chap. 1 0 - Eye-on-a-chip , in Principles of Human Organs-on-Chips , M. Mozafari, Editor. Woodhead Publishing. pp. 315–369.

Andrews, M. G., & Kriegstein, A. R. (2022). Challenges of Organoid Research. Annual Review of Neuroscience , 45 , 23–39.

Pleguezuelos-Manzano, C., et al. (2020). Establishment and culture of human intestinal organoids derived from adult stem cells. Current Protocols In Immunology / Edited By John E. Coligan. [Et Al.] , 130 (1), e106.

Wahle, P., et al. (2023). Multimodal spatiotemporal phenotyping of human retinal organoid development. Nature Biotechnology , 41 (12), 1765–1775.

Kathuria, A., et al. (2020). Comparative transcriptomic analysis of cerebral organoids and cortical neuron cultures derived from Human Induced Pluripotent Stem cells. Stem Cells and Development , 29 (21), 1370–1381.

Zhao, J., et al. (2020). APOE4 exacerbates synapse loss and neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease patient iPSC-derived cerebral organoids. Nature Communications , 11 (1), 5540.

Zhu, X., et al. (2021). Liver organoids: Formation strategies and Biomedical Applications. Tissue Eng Regen Med , 18 (4), 573–585.

Zhao, Z. (2022). Organoids Nat Rev Methods Primers , 2.

Drakhlis, L., et al. (2021). Human heart-forming organoids recapitulate early heart and foregut development. Nature Biotechnology , 39 (6), 737–746.

Broutier, L., et al. (2016). Culture and establishment of self-renewing human and mouse adult liver and pancreas 3D organoids and their genetic manipulation. Nature Protocols , 11 (9), 1724–1743.

Sun, Y., et al. (2021). Generating 3D-cultured organoids for pre-clinical modeling and treatment of degenerative joint disease, in Signal Transduct Target Ther (p. 380). England.

Hemeryck, L., et al. (2022). Organoids from human tooth showing epithelial stemness phenotype and differentiation potential. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences , 79 (3), 153.

Huch, M., et al. (2013). In vitro expansion of single Lgr5 + liver stem cells induced by wnt-driven regeneration. Nature , 494 (7436), 247–250.

Sullivan, K. M., et al. (2022). Extracellular Microenvironmental Control for Organoid Assembly. Tissue Eng Part B Rev , 28 (6), 1209–1222.

Low, L. A., et al. (2021). Organs-on-chips: Into the next decade. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery , 20 (5), 345–361.

Bhatia, S. N., & Ingber, D. E. (2014). Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nature Biotechnology , 32 (8), 760–772.

Leung, C. M., et al. (2022). A guide to the organ-on-a-chip. Nature Reviews Methods Primers , 2 (1), 33.

Olgasi, C., Cucci, A., & Follenzi, A. (2020). iPSC-Derived liver organoids: A journey from Drug Screening, to Disease modeling, arriving to Regenerative Medicine . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 21(17).

Picollet-D’hahan, N., et al. (2021). Multiorgan-on-a-Chip: A systemic Approach to Model and Decipher Inter-organ Communication. Trends Biotechnol , 39 (8), 788–810.

Wang, H., et al. (2021). 3D cell culture models: Drug pharmacokinetics, safety assessment, and regulatory consideration. Clinical and Translational Science , 14 (5), 1659–1680.

Kang, S., Park, S. E., & Huh, D. D. (2021). Organ-on-a-chip technology for nanoparticle research. Nano Converg , 8 (1), 20.

Kim, C. (2015). iPSC technology–powerful hand for disease modeling and therapeutic screen. Bmb Reports , 48 (5), 256–265.

Qian, L., & Tcw, J. (2021). Human iPSC-Based modeling of central nerve System disorders for Drug Discovery . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 22(3).

Gómez-Lechón, M. J., & Tolosa, L. (2016). Human hepatocytes derived from pluripotent stem cells: A promising cell model for drug hepatotoxicity screening. Archives of Toxicology , 90 (9), 2049–2061.

Blaszkiewicz, J., & Duncan, S. A. (2022). Advancements in Disease modeling and Drug Discovery using iPSC-Derived hepatocyte-like cells . Genes (Basel) , 13(4).

O’Connor, M. D. (2013). The 3R principle: Advancing clinical application of human pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Research & Therapy , 4 (2), 21.

Article   Google Scholar  

Parrotta, E. I. (2020). Modeling Cardiac Disease mechanisms using Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived cardiomyocytes: Progress, promises and challenges . International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 21(12).

Takebe, T., et al. (2013). Vascularized and functional human liver from an iPSC-derived organ bud transplant. Nature , 499 (7459), 481–484.

Lee, A. S., et al. (2013). Tumorigenicity as a clinical hurdle for pluripotent stem cell therapies. Nature Medicine , 19 (8), 998–1004.

Kramer, N., et al. (2016). Full biological characterization of human pluripotent stem cells will open the door to translational research. Archives of Toxicology , 90 (9), 2173–2186.

Balls, M., Bailey, J., & Combes, R. D. (2019). How viable are alternatives to animal testing in determining the toxicities of therapeutic drugs? Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology , 15 (12), 985–987.

Administration, U. S. F. D. (2021). Advancing New Alternative Methodologies at FDA . Jan U.S. Food & Drug Administration: FDA website. pp. 1–34.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number : HI22C1314).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Biopharmaceutical and Medical Sciences, Health & Wellness College, Sungshin Women’s University, 55, Dobong-ro 76ga-gil, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Guiyoung Park

CiSTEM laboratory, Convergent Research Consortium for Immunologic Disease, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea

Yeri Alice Rim & Ji Hyeon Ju

Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Institute of Medical Science, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 4 3, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea

Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea

Department of Biohealth Regulatory Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea

Yeowon Sohn & Yoojun Nam

Yipscell Inc, L2 Omnibus Park, Banpo-dearo 222, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea

Yoojun Nam & Ji Hyeon Ju

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GP designed the study and wrote the manuscript. YAR, YS and YN edited the manuscript. YN and JHJ approved the final manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final draft of this manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yoojun Nam or Ji Hyeon Ju .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Park, G., Rim, Y.A., Sohn, Y. et al. Replacing Animal Testing with Stem Cell-Organoids : Advantages and Limitations. Stem Cell Rev and Rep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-024-10723-5

Download citation

Accepted : 08 April 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-024-10723-5

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

• Animal Testing Alternatives
• Animal Testing law
• Organ-on-chips
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Brief interventions 2.0: a new agenda for alcohol policy, practice and research

• Duncan Stewart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-4280 1 ,
• Mary Madden 2 &
• Jim McCambridge 2  

Globalization and Health volume  20 , Article number:  34 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

170 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Alcohol problems are increasing across the world and becoming more complex. Limitations to international evidence and practice mean that the screening and brief intervention paradigm forged in the 1980s is no longer fit for the purpose of informing how conversations about alcohol should take place in healthcare and other services. A new paradigm for brief interventions has been called for.

Brief interventions 2.0

We must start with a re-appraisal of the roles of alcohol in society now and the damage it does to individual and population health. Industry marketing and older unresolved ideas about alcohol continue to impede honest and thoughtful conversations and perpetuate stigma, stereotypes, and outright fictions. This makes it harder to think about and talk about how alcohol affects health, well-being, and other aspects of life, and how we as a society should respond. To progress, brief interventions should not be restricted only to the self-regulation of one’s own drinking. Content can be orientated to the properties of the drug itself and the overlooked problems it causes, the policy issues and the politics of a powerful globalised industry. This entails challenging and reframing stigmatising notions of alcohol problems, and incorporating wider alcohol policy measures and issues that are relevant to how people think about their own and others' drinking. We draw on recent empirical work to examine the implications of this agenda for practitioners and for changing the public conversation on alcohol.

Against a backdrop of continued financial pressures on health service delivery, this analysis provokes debate and invites new thinking on alcohol. We suggest that the case for advancing brief interventions version 2.0 is both compelling and urgent.

In an era of restrictions on health budgets and ageing populations, alcohol problems are increasing across the world [ 1 ], generating new treatment demand and need for interventions. This is particularly so in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where alcohol markets are expanding and harm per litre consumed is greatest [ 2 ], whilst within high income countries, alcohol makes health inequalities worse [ 3 ]. Substantial mental health comorbidities are increasingly the norm in treatment systems [ 4 ], and physical health comorbidities are becoming more visible in older populations [ 5 ].

The obvious response to this situation is to make a better case to win more resources, resist cuts and defend what exists. We suggest, however, that this is not enough, and that new thinking is now needed. Health systems struggle to embrace prevention across the board [ 6 ]. “Brief interventions” originated in the public health understanding of alcohol. The nature of the challenge has changed in fundamental ways in recent decades, and their limitations are better understood. This makes timely a re-appraisal, reconnecting to contemporary public health ideas and evidence.

We propose that we should now reimagine the contents and aims of brief interventions, and how they might act in synergy with other efforts to address the avoidable damage done by alcohol.

The brief intervention concept

A little under half a century ago, the rise of the new public health movement made health promotion and disease prevention central to improving population health. Alcohol was highly relevant to this development. The World Health Organisation brought together alcohol researchers in a major programme that developed the AUDIT screening tool [ 7 ] and undertook a randomised trial that demonstrated that it was possible to have conversations with people in primary care that led them to reduce drinking [ 8 ]. This represented a new way of responding to alcohol problems; avoiding waiting until treatment for well-established problems was sought.

Many of the key research questions identified in a “golden age” of research advances in the late 1980s and early 1990s remain unanswered today [ 9 ]. There were theoretical weaknesses in the advice and counselling interventions developed and practitioners did not implement them in routine practice [ 10 ]. Much of the available evidence is from high-income countries, with relatively few trials conducted in LMICs [ 11 ]. Conflicting findings and the limitations of the large body of international literature have received too little attention [ 12 ]. It is perhaps most appropriately interpreted as demonstrating efficacy; recent large trials in naturalistic conditions demonstrate that confident claims of effectiveness are misplaced [ 12 ]. As a result, programmes may attain reach, which is itself challenging, but cannot be expected alone to deliver health impacts in populations where they are implemented [ 13 ]. The digital alcohol intervention literature has evolved in similar ways, with much promise in early studies, but with near exclusive reliance on self-reported outcomes not routinely included within risk of bias assessments, large trials with different findings than smaller trials, and substantial unexplained heterogeneity in meta-analyses [ 10 ].

Over the last 10 years a consensus has taken hold in the field that a change in direction is needed; a chronic disease paradigm is one possibility [ 14 , 15 ], and more extensive development of digital interventions another [ 16 ]. Our thinking centres on the unhelpful dislocation of brief interventions from wider alcohol policy measures everywhere. We note the very different contexts for the audience for this paper. These include readers in LMICs where there are no brief intervention programmes or alcohol policy measures. And also, readers in high income countries where such programmes provide important care services (such as screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in the U.S.) with or without otherwise well-developed alcohol policies.

The alcohol challenge for health systems

Adults, and children, are exposed to alcohol marketing in competition with relatively impotent health promotion messages [ 17 ]. Norms are shaped early in life, and drinking and heavy drinking is normalized in many countries. With the aid of new technologies, marketing is getting ever more sophisticated [ 18 ]. The environment is also one in which the persistence of stereotypical ideas of the so called ‘alcoholic’ and stigmatized images of alcohol problems obstruct broader thinking about the nature and impacts of alcohol harms [ 19 ]. Public understanding has not been informed by the developing science: there remains no consensus in the research community on what is an alcohol problem [ 20 ].

Locating an alcohol problem within the individual, consonant with neoliberal ideas that people are responsible for everything in their own lives, invisibilises government and business roles and responsibilities in causing alcohol problems [ 21 ]. Large corporations typically make a potentially dangerous drug widely available, encourage people to use it, shape government policy to place few restrictions on its use, and then blame those who end up having problems with it [ 22 ]. The ethical issues here warrant attention, especially as problems for drinkers cause families and communities to have alcohol problems too [ 23 ].

The structure of the alcohol industry increasingly resembles tobacco, especially in beer and spirits [ 24 ]. The largest companies are now highly profitable and operate globally, whereas only 30 years ago they were national operators. They are connected to tobacco companies in various ways [ 22 , 25 ] and use the same approaches; selling themselves as part of the solution not part of the problem, with the resources needed to do that effectively [ 26 ]. Alcohol policy interference is unrestricted, whereas tobacco has been curbed [ 27 ].

The power of alcohol industry marketing needs to be restricted if we are to help people to manage their alcohol consumption in ways which limit damage to health and well-being. Brief interventions have sought to help people avoid or manage problems with alcohol, but that is harder to do now in the contexts of lifetime exposure to industry and other social influences, deepening inequalities and weakened capacity or willingness to manage unhealthy commodity industries [ 28 ]. It is perhaps unsurprising that the original ambitions for brief interventions have yet to be realised convincingly when prices are low, availability easy and norms encourage more drinking [ 29 ]. To progress, we need to recognise that, for many reasons, alcohol and the problems it causes may be challenging to identify and discuss with individuals. Invidiously, this is especially so when drinking is heavier. We need to find new ways of talking about all of this.

Ways forward for brief interventions 2.0

Brief interventions are simply conversations about alcohol, so how might brief interventions 2.0 (BI 2.0) make them more powerful?

Firstly, we should not continue to think of brief interventions as only to do with self-regulation of one’s own consumption, in isolation from personal health and social contextual factors. This means re-orientating brief interventions to the damage done, directly and indirectly, by a toxic and carcinogenic drug and the enormous burden it places on health services and society. There is no entirely safe dose [ 30 , 31 ] and people with existing health problems are particularly vulnerable to additional harms from interference with the effects of medications designed to benefit health, including on adherence [ 5 ]. These impacts should be integral to routine discussions about treatments, conditions and wider well-being, rather than the current practice of regarding alcohol as a separate, “lifestyle” issue. Such constructs inhibit patients and practitioners in approaching alcohol and its harms meaningfully.

Brief intervention content has also failed to keep pace with and take account of contemporary evidence on the wider determinants of health [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], the continued challenges they present for policy and practice [ 35 ], and the particular vulnerability of the most disadvantaged to alcohol harms [ 36 ]. Stigmatising attitudes, cultural norms, price, availability, and industry marketing are important influences on drinking behaviour [ 37 ], so we need brief interventions to address these issues too. Having a wider content repertoire may help people to think differently about the place of alcohol in their lives, and in wider society. This may be particularly apposite where there is media attention or concurrent policy debates and developments; brief intervention programmes could be designed to incorporate attention to them. In the absence of policy innovations, in all countries where alcohol consumption is widespread, there is mass media content on alcohol; alcohol harm hides in plain sight. Such influences should not only be more fully recognised as the context in which conversations about one’s own drinking takes place but can also be a part of that conversation. We should be talking about whatever is interesting about alcohol to the people we have the time and opportunity to talk with.

A further proposition follows on from this. Where new policy measures are being considered, adopted, or implemented, or where there are public health campaigns, brief intervention programmes could form a key part of more integrated comprehensive alcohol strategies. Innovative resources, in diverse media, can be produced that support conversations taking place that reinforce the effects of other interventions. Such materials may be designed to prompt thinking, enhance readiness and willingness to discuss alcohol, with health and other services being able to take further the implications for the needs they serve. Adjusting programme aims in this way may seem obvious, and is very much in line with the original aspirations for brief interventions as instruments of public health improvement, so it is disappointing that possible synergies of this kind have been so little studied. Opportunities for so doing should be grasped when they arise.

Progressing BI 2.0 is contingent on overcoming the prevalent idea that labelling people as ‘alcoholics’ or ‘problem drinkers’ provides the most helpful way of thinking about this subject [ 38 ]. It does not. In fact, it gets in the way [ 39 ]. People can have many problems, and the more one drinks the more likely it is that alcohol will complicate things, often in ways that are difficult to appreciate [ 40 ]. Perhaps, focusing on what may seem the less serious initially may help problem recognition, such as having a hangover, missing a day’s work, or an “accident”. There is something to consider in these examples that it might be helpful to discuss rather than disregard.

At the population-level, it is for all of us and our policy makers to consider how far and in which ways we have an alcohol problem [ 41 ]. This does not mean denying that alcohol also brings pleasure and other benefits. Decision-making around use of this drug needs to be more rational, because currently it is too pressured by pro-consumption influence and relics of past ways of thinking. Ultimately, development of BI 2.0 requires a candid public conversation about how alcohol and alcohol problems interfere with the lives that people want to live.

Putting BI 2.0 ideas into practice

In busy and over-burdened health services, it may at first seem far-fetched to expect that BI 2.0 will appeal to practitioners or their managers, especially so if presented as a new or additional task. A better approach is to present it as a way of responding to what patients already bring with them. We have been working with clinical pharmacists in primary care to help them briefly explore whether there are any alcohol connections to why patients are presenting or have been asked to attend [ 42 ]. To be a conscientious professional, many health care practitioners need to be able to discuss alcohol for medication safety, adherence, and effectiveness reasons, as well as the implications of alcohol for many conditions. Seeing alcohol as a drug makes it not just legitimate but important to raise and integrate clinically into consultations for both professionals and patients [ 43 ]. Most importantly for the patient, alcohol is discussed in the context of their health and what matters to them, using their own language and terminology, where the relevance is clear.

If people make connections between alcohol, medicines regimes, other daily activities and their health, then this invites broader social contexts into discussions. Too often, conversations in health and care settings about alcohol are too brief, too crude, heavily moralised, paternalistic and all too easy to ignore, when they are not avoided altogether [ 43 , 44 ]. Confident, skilled practitioners can offer support that helps people make their own decisions about alcohol use, navigating the cultural influences that make talking about alcohol more challenging than it needs to be. For professionals as well as patients. Much existing information and other tools for discussion look dry and dull, especially in comparison to industry investment in engaging marketing materials. So too our digital resources. We need content that is appealing, lively, and engaging to capture and keep hold of attention. We should design material that people will want to share with others in their social networks. Intimacy also matters; content that resonates personally is to be prized because that is tapping into what’s important to the person.

For all these reasons, and more, these conversations need to be skilfully handled or the deleterious effects of alcogenic cultural baggage will continue to hinder us. That is why we think that working with practitioners and opening up practice development issues is a promising place to move forward with BI 2.0 (Table  1 ).

Conclusions

There is global recognition that tackling alcohol harms requires a multifaceted approach, incorporating restrictions on availability, advertising, and pricing policies as well as facilitating access to brief interventions [ 34 , 45 ]. We have presented ideas for progressing BI 2.0, which orientates intervention content and aims to these other elements and the larger contexts, and puts prevention at the heart of policy and practice. This requires a system-wide approach that avoids the pitfalls of focusing on stereotyped notions of problem drinking, highlights the need to strengthen the wider public conversation on alcohol and promotes synergies with developing alcohol policies. Our intention is to provoke discussion, debate, study and action, and we suggest this must proceed with urgency.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

• Brief interventions

Low- and middle-income countries

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment

Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392:1015–35.

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. Geneva: WHO; 2018. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/274603/9789241565639-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Aaccessed 20 Nov 2023.

Mackenbach JP, Kulhanova I, Bopp M, Borrell C, Deboosere P, Kovacs K, et al. Inequalities in Alcohol-Related Mortality in 17 European Countries: A Retrospective Analysis of Mortality Registers. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001909.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Harris J, Dalkin S, Jones L, Ainscough T, Maden M, Bate A, et al. Achieving integrated treatment: a realist synthesis of service models and systems for co-existing serious mental health and substance use conditions. Lancet Psychiat. 2023;10:632–43.

Stewart D, McCambridge J. Alcohol complicates multimorbidity in older adults. BMJ. 2019;365:l4304.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, Adams C, Alleyne G, Asaria P, et al. Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1438–47.

Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Babor T, Grant M. Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems. Report on Phase II: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Brief Interventions in Primary Health Care. Geneva: WHO; 1992. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/project-on-identification-and-management-of-alcohol-related-problems.-report-on-phase-ii-a-randomized-clinical-trial-of-brief-interventions-in-primary-health-care . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

McCambridge J, Cunningham JA. The early history of ideas on brief interventions for alcohol. Addiction. 2014;109:538–46.

McCambridge J. Reimagining brief interventions for alcohol: towards a paradigm fit for the twenty first century? : INEBRIA Nick Heather Lecture 2019: This lecture celebrates the work of Nick Heather in leading thinking in respect of both brief interventions and wider alcohol sciences. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):41.

Ghosh A, Singh P, Das N, Pandit PM, Das S, Sarkar S. Efficacy of brief intervention for harmful and hazardous alcohol use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from low middle-income countries. Addiction. 2022;117(3):545–58.

McCambridge J, Saitz R. Rethinking brief interventions for alcohol in general practice. BMJ. 2017;356:j116.

Heather N. Can screening and brief intervention lead to population-level reductions in alcohol-related harm? Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):15.

Glass JE, Andréasson S, Bradley KA, Finn SW, Williams EC, Bakshi AS, et al. Rethinking alcohol interventions in health care: a thematic meeting of the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs (INEBRIA). Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2017;12(1):14.

Rehm J, Anderson P, Manthey J, Shield KD, Struzzo P, Wojnar M, et al. Alcohol use disorders in primary health care: what do we know and where do we go? Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(4):422–7.

Boniface S, Davies E. Digital tools and apps to reduce alcohol use. BMJ. 2023;382:1665.

Hastings G, Sheron N. Alcohol marketing: grooming the next generation: children are more exposed than adults and need much stronger protection. BMJ. 2013;346:f1227.

Madden M, McCambridge J. Alcohol marketing versus public health: David and Goliath? Glob Health. 2021;17(1):45.

Williamson L. Destigmatizing alcohol dependence: the requirement for an ethical (not only medical) remedy. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(5):e5-8.

Toner P, Bohnke JR, Andersen P, McCambridge J. Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;202:39–49.

Room R. Addiction and personal responsibility as solutions to the contradictions of neoliberal consumerism. Crit Public Health. 2011;21(2):141–51.

McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(9):1571–84.

Room R, Ferris J, Laslett AM, Livingston M, Mugavin J, Wilkinson C. The drinker’s effect on the social environment: a conceptual framework for studying alcohol’s harm to others. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(4):1855–71.

Jernigan D, Ross CS. The alcohol marketing landscape: alcohol industry size, structure, strategies, and public health responses. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2020;S19:13–25.

McCambridge J, Garry J, Room R. The origins and purposes of alcohol industry social aspects organizations: insights from the tobacco industry documents. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2021;82(6):740–51.

McCambridge J, Mitchell G, Lesch M, Filippou A, Golder S, Garry J, et al. The emperor has no clothes: a synthesis of findings from the Transformative Research on the Alcohol industry. Policy and Science research programme Addiction. 2023;118(3):558–66.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organisation: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO; 2005. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42811/9241591013.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, Bertscher A, Bondy K, Chang HJ, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1194–213.

Reith G. Addictive consumption: capitalism, modernity and excess. Oxon: Routledge; 2019.

Google Scholar  

Anderson BO, Berdzuli N, Ilbawi A, Kestel D, Kluge HP, Krech R, et al. Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(1):e6–7.

GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015–35.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marmot M, Allen J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. London: Institute of Health Equity; 2020. https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10-years-on . Aaccessed 22 Nov 2023.

World Health Organisation. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO; 2008. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-IER-CSDH-08.1 . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Preventing harmful alcohol use: OECD health policy studies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b4ffb-en . Accessed 01 Dec 2023.

Rasanathan K. 10 years after the Commission on Social Determinants of Health: social injustice is still killing on a grand scale. Lancet. 2018;392(10154):1176–7.

Probst C, Kilian C, Sanchez S, Lange S, Rehm J. The role of alcohol use and drinking patterns in socioeconomic inequalities in mortality: a systematic review. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(6):e324–32.

World Health Organisation. Draft action plan (2022–2030) to effectively implement the global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol as a public health priority. Geneva: WHO; 2022. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150_7Add1-en.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2023.

Saitz R. International statement recommending against the use of terminology that can stigmatize people. J Addict Med. 2016;10(1):1–2.

Lesch M, McCambridge J. A long-brewing crisis: the historical antecedents of major alcohol policy change in Ireland. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(1):135–43.

Gough B, Madden M, Morris S, Atkin K, McCambridge J. How do older people normalise their drinking?: An analysis of interviewee accounts. Appetite. 2020;146:104513.

Lesch M, McCambridge J. Coordination, framing and innovation: the political sophistication of public health advocates in Ireland. Addiction. 2021;116(11):3252–60.

McCambridge J, Atkin K, Dhital R, Foster B, Gough B, Madden M, et al. Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):63.

Madden M, Stewart D, Mills T, McCambridge J. Alcohol, the overlooked drug: clinical pharmacist perspectives on addressing alcohol in primary care. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2023;18(1):22.

Rapley T, May C, Frances KE. Still a difficult business? Negotiating alcohol-related problems in general practice consultations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(9):2418–28.

World Health Organisation: The SAFER technical package: five areas of intervention at national and subnational levels. Geneva: WHO; 2019. at national and subnational levels. Geneva: WHO; 2019. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/330053/9789241516419-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 22 Nov 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research [NIHR] Programme Grants for Applied Research (reference: RP-PG-0216–20002). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Sciences and Professions, London Metropolitan University, London, N7 8DB, UK

Duncan Stewart

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Mary Madden & Jim McCambridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceptualised the article, DS and JM did the initial drafts and all contributed to the writing, editing, and approved the final version. DS is the guarantor.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duncan Stewart .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Stewart, D., Madden, M. & McCambridge, J. Brief interventions 2.0: a new agenda for alcohol policy, practice and research. Global Health 20 , 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01031-1

Download citation

Received : 11 December 2023

Accepted : 20 March 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01031-1

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

• Global health
• Health systems
• Alcohol policy

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Maintenance work is planned for Wednesday 1st May 2024 from 9:00am to 11:00am (BST).

During this time, the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly and some pages may be temporarily unavailable. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Chemical Society Reviews

Bridging the gap between academic research and industrial development in advanced all-solid-state lithium–sulfur batteries.

* Corresponding authors

a Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S Cass Ave, Lemont, IL 60439, USA E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b Eastern Institute for Advanced Study, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo, Zhejiang, P. R. China

c Laurel Heights Secondary School, 650 Laurelwood Dr, Waterloo, ON, Canada

The energy storage and vehicle industries are heavily investing in advancing all-solid-state batteries to overcome critical limitations in existing liquid electrolyte-based lithium-ion batteries, specifically focusing on mitigating fire hazards and improving energy density. All-solid-state lithium–sulfur batteries (ASSLSBs), featuring earth-abundant sulfur cathodes, high-capacity metallic lithium anodes, and non-flammable solid electrolytes, hold significant promise. Despite these appealing advantages, persistent challenges like sluggish sulfur redox kinetics, lithium metal failure, solid electrolyte degradation, and manufacturing complexities hinder their practical use. To facilitate the transition of these technologies to an industrial scale, bridging the gap between fundamental scientific research and applied R&D activities is crucial. Our review will address the inherent challenges in cell chemistries within ASSLSBs, explore advanced characterization techniques, and delve into innovative cell structure designs. Furthermore, we will provide an overview of the recent trends in R&D and investment activities from both academia and industry. Building on the fundamental understandings and significant progress that has been made thus far, our objective is to motivate the battery community to advance ASSLSBs in a practical direction and propel the industrialized process.

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

J. Lee, C. Zhao, C. Wang, A. Chen, X. Sun, K. Amine and G. Xu, Chem. Soc. Rev. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3CS00439B

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements