The first step of any review is determining what the research question is. The question should be well-crafted to lay the foundation for the review. The question should also be answerable and focused.
There are several research question frameworks to support you in structuring the research question and considering what should be included in the review, regardless of review type.
Research question frameworks can also provide the basis for identifying selection criteria and for developing systematic search strategies.
These frameworks can be adapted for different research areas. They can sometimes include options for describing the study designs to be included in the review.
It's important to choose a framework that is suitable for both your research area and review type to guide the elements and parameters of the question development.
Click on the plus (+) icons below to explore some common research question frameworks.
The CHIP framework is useful for questions that are used in psychology and counselling.
CHIP stands for:
Example #1
How do assessment methods (issue) impact student engagement (population) in higher education institutions (context), and how are universities adapting assessment strategies in response to student needs (how)?
Example #2
How does microplastic pollution (issue) affect marine biodiversity (population) in coastal ecosystems (context), and how are mitigation strategies being implemented (how)?
The CIMO framework is useful for questions that are used in business research.
CIMO stands for:
Example #1
Synthesised findings from case studies (mechanism) on business non-profit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) projects (intervention) with non-profit organisations (context) to generate a framework (outcomes) for the contribution and management of business non-profit engagement in SOI.
Example #2
In urban environments with high energy consumption (context), how does the integration of rooftop solar panels in city infrastructure (intervention) influence carbon emissions reduction (outcome) through increased localised energy production and decreased reliance on fossil fuels (mechanism)?
The PCC framework is useful for questions that are broad or reviewing qualitative research.
The PCC framework is recommended by the JBI Scoping Review guidelines (11.2.2 Developing the title and question).
PCC stands for:
Example #1
How managers (participants) apply managerial judgement in the capital investment process (context) from a cognitive and social psychology (concept) perspective.
Example #2
What are the experiences of nurses (population) using artificial intelligence-driven clinical decision support systems (concept) in emergency departments (context).
The PICO framework is useful for questions about the effectiveness of interventions.
PICO stands for:
Example #1
For university staff (population), how does videoconferencing software (intervention) compared with in person meetings (comparison intervention) affect engagement in meetings (outcomes)?
Example #2
Does a plant-based diet (intervention) improve cardiovascular health outcomes (outcome) in adults with hypertension (patient/population) compared to a standard low-fat diet (comparison)?
PICO has variations and extensions to accommodate different question types, including qualitative questions. For example:
Variation of the PICO framework to accommodate for qualitative research questions.
PICo stands for:
Example #1
How do remote workers (population) experience social isolation (phenomenon) in digital work environments (context)?
Example #2
How do patients with chronic pain (population) experience mindfulness-based interventions (phenomenon of interest) in outpatient pain management clinics (context)?
Variation of the PICO framework that extents to accomodate for Context.
PICOC stands for:
Example #1
Does a flipped classroom approach (intervention) improve student learning outcomes (outcome) in secondary school mathematics classes (population) compared to traditional lecture-based teaching (comparison) in Australian schools (context)?
Example #2
Does using superconducting materials (intervention) improve energy efficiency (outcome) in high-voltage power grids (population) compared to conventional copper wiring (comparison) in urban infrastructure (context)?
The SPICE framework is useful for questions evaluating the results of a service, project, or intervention.
SPICE stands for:
Example #1
How do corporate leaders (perspective) perceive the effectiveness of remote team management (phenomenon) in global organisations (setting), compared to in-person team management (comparison), and what impact does it have on team cohesion (evaluation)?
Example #2
How do frontline healthcare workers (perspective) perceive the effectiveness of mental health support programs (phenomenon of interest) in hospitals (setting) compared to community-based services (comparison), and what impact do these programs have on burnout levels (evaluation)?
Evidence syntheses literature reviews of any kind are time and resource intensive. An important early step in the process is to check that your research question is addressing a gap in the literature.
That way you avoid research wastage by unnecessarily duplicating an existing review.
Many review guidelines require registration of a protocol (or a plan) for a review in a register or other publication. This alerts other researchers that a certain type of review is underway based on a particular research question.
Review protocols and published reviews on your research question in registers and key databases for your research area.
Various repositories exist for registering and finding evidence syntheses, such as:
If you locate a published review on your research question, consider whether the review is either of poor quality or is out of date and a new review would add value to the field. If the existing review is current and of good quality, revisit your research question and consider a new direction.
For further information and instructions on framing your research question in preparation for a literautre review please explore our Module 2: Frame your research.
If you are interesting in further information on this stage of a review, check out the following resources: