Introduction to: Dissemination and critical evaluation of research

Having completed the analysis and interpretation of our data, we are now ready to communicate our results to the community of health scientists and professionals. Depending on the context in which our research was carried out, this entails the writing up of a report, a thesis or a ‘paper’ for a health sciences journal. The most common way of communicating research findings by established researchers is first to report the results at a professional conference and then to write a more formal paper for a relevant journal.

Each journal has its particular set of rules and requirements for how research projects should be written up for publication. In general, at least for quantitative research, the format for presenting our research follows the sequential stages of the research process outlined in the present book. This general format is outlined in Chapter 22, which includes a detailed discussion of the specific sections of a research paper and outlines some ‘stylistic’ considerations required by journal editors.

It is an ethical requirement that we report our results in an accurate and honest fashion. Before a paper is published in a reputable journal, it is critically evaluated by experts in the area (called referees) for errors or problems. However, sometimes problems remain unidentified. Ultimately, it is our task as health professionals to read import-ant publications in a critical fashion. We owe it to our patients and clients to be cautious and critical concerning recent developments in theories and practices. However, being critical does not imply the adoption of a cynical or derogatory approach towards the work of other health researchers. We are aware that ethical and economic constraints, and the complex nature of the subject matter, as discussed in Section 2, make it difficult to ensure the external and internal validity of research projects.

The critical evaluation of a paper is not like judging a dog show; we do not simply award or subtract points for the strengths and weaknesses of a research project. Rather, if the information is relevant to advancing the effectiveness of our practices, we have a stake in the project (even as readers). In this way, we take an active role in trying to ‘repair’ the problems which might cloud or invalidate the evidence.

In Chapter 23, we outline some of the crit-eria which we generally apply to evaluate specific sections of a research paper. We also discuss the implications of finding serious problems with the design, data collection and analysis and interpret-ations of a research project.

In effect, a single research project is rarely sufficient either to verify or falsify a theory, or to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment programme convincingly. Rather, we need to evaluate and summarize the literature as a whole, that is, conduct a literature review. Conflicting findings or gaps in the knowledge for a given area of health care identified in our literature review provide the impetus for further research, as outlined in Section 2. In this way research is a circular process.