http://ggaging.

com/details/381/en-US/creating-a-research-idea--steps-and-challenges
https://www.scalelive.com/relevant-research-questions.html
FINER
FINER stands for feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant

The FINER* mnemonic is a framework used for formulating research questions (feasible,
interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant). FINER allows researchers to ponder the philosophical,
logical, and scientific implications of writing research questions.

Researchers have to evaluate their immediate empirical and clinical environment when planning
to answer a research question. Researchers also have to be introspective in terms of how much
time and effort they are willing to invest in a research study from inception to publication.

In order to meet all of the FINER criteria, researchers MUST become vested in the empirical
literature. Research questions are grounded in the empirical literature. Mastery of the literature
allows researchers to know what questions have been asked and which questions need
answers.

Other important questions that researchers work through with the FINER framework include:

1. Will the question fill a meaningful "gap" in the knowledge base?

2. What new evidence will the research question yield?
3. How will study participants be protected from harm? How will confidentiality and anonymity be
upheld? Informed consent?
4. How will answering the research question impact clinical practice? Quality improvement?
Protocols? Policy?

Feasible research questions

Feasible in FINER focuses on time, scope, resources, expertise, and funding

When using the FINER framework, writing feasible research questions ensures that researchers
are taking on a research project that can actually be completed. Feasible research questions
can be answered. The feasibility of research questions focuses on objective aspects of the
immediate empirical or clinical environment (time, scope, resources, expertise, funding, etc.).

Statistical power is also a central focus of feasibility. Researchers need to have access to a
large enough pool of participants to sample from to conduct meaningful research. Without a
large enough sample size, statistical power will decrease, meaning that researchers will be less
likely to detect significant treatment effects.

Collaboration with other researchers is highly suggested to share the work load and integrate
multiple viewpoints into the research question. In terms of scope, researchers should seek to be
more deductive rather than inductive in order to write feasible research questions.

Feasible research questions and FINER

Here are some questions to answer when writing feasible research questions with FINER.

1. Can the research question be answered in the current and future clinical or empirical
environment?
2. Do researchers have access to an adequate pool of potential participants from the
population of interest?
3. Is there enough time to conduct the study?
4. Does the scope of the study lead to attainable objectives?
5. Is the effect size large enough to be detected and still hold clinical relevance?
6. Do the researchers possess the necessary resources and expertise to conduct the study?
7. Have the researchers consulted a statistician or methodologist regarding the feasibility of the
study?
8. Have researchers conducted a pilot study to establish a preliminary measure of effect for
an a priori power analysis?

Interesting research questions

The "I" represents intrinsic and extrinsic interest in answering a research question

First and foremost, the interesting part of the FINER mnemonic device is YOU! People that
conduct quality research possess an intrinsic motivation and drive for scientific discovery and
innovation. Your personal investment in the study is of paramount importance if you plan on
seeing the study through from inception to publication. Write interesting research questions that
ignite your passion!

The opinions and contributions of your colleagues plays an important role in writing interesting
research questions. Research is always a collaborative effort and should not be conducted in
isolation. Seek out mentors and peers to discuss your research and welcome other pertinent
suggestions and ideas. Recruit other interested individuals to work with you on the proposed
study. Interesting research questions tend to attract other motivated researchers naturally.

Seek out funding institutions such as the NIH (National Institutes of Health) or NSF (National
Science Foundation) to see if they are currently funding proposals in the area of interest. If they
are, then your research question is interesting (especially in academic research environments).
If they are not, your study is still interesting. Build a strong rationale for conducting the study and
become vested in the literature!
Interesting research questions and FINER

Here are some questions to answer when writing interesting research questions with FINER.

1. Will the study be personally rewarding?

2. Will the study be professionally rewarding?
3. Do colleagues believe that the study is interesting?
4. Are funding agencies (NIH, NSF, etc.) currently funding research in this empirical area?
5. Will the study serve the immediate needs of patients?
6. Are researchers willing to give forth the effort and time to conduct the study in a rigorous
and valid manner?
7. Do researchers have interdisciplinary support and interest in the research endeavor?

Novel research questions

The "N" in FINER means generating new evidence for the current empirical literature

In regards to asking a novel research question with the FINER framework, ask what "gap" in the
existing literature will your research question fill? Novel research questions generate new and
compelling clinical evidence that serves the needs of patient populations. In order to fill a "gap"
in the existing literature, the researcher must master the literature to know what has been done
in the past.

Asking novel research questions does not mean that researchers cannot replicate, verbatim, the
methods of previously published studies! Without a doubt, using the methods of researchers
who have an article published in a top-tier journal is a very smart decision. Also, the findings of
published studies are supposed to be tested in different populations and different situations in
order to generate more validity for the clinical evidence. Validating the findings of published
studies is a great way to ask novel research questions with the FINER framework!

Another option for writing novel research questions is for researchers to measure for different
predictor, confounding, clinical, etiological, demographic, or outcome variables that have not
been assessed in the current literature.

Secondary, tertiary, and ancillary questions also play a role in meeting "N" criteria for the FINER
framework. Novel research questions can come from finding various demographic, clinical,
confounding, and prognostic variables in the existing literature and adding them to a research
study.
Novel research questions and FINER

Here are some questions to answer when writing novel research questions with FINER.

1. Do you have a strong mastery of the current literature in the area of interest?
2. Has the research question been answered before, but not with your proposed
environment, patient population, or framework?
3. Have you examined the discussion and implications sections of published articles for
questions posed by authors?
4. Are you using more rigorous research designs to improve upon the level of evidence that
exists in the literature?
5. Are you using more precise and accurate predictor, confounding, or outcome variables than
what appears in the literature?
6. Do you believe that the study will make a meaningful contribution to the literature?

Ethical research questions

The "E" in FINER focuses on asking an ethical research question

Writing ethical research questions is an absolute necessity when conducting empirical research.
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) must review any proposed study involving human beings
before it is undertaken. In order to ask ethical research questions, IRB approval MUST be
obtained before conducting research! So, this part of the FINER framework always takes care of
itself when researchers file an IRB application for review.

Protocols and methods must be presented in a standardized format for review by a board of
experts across a wide range of specialties. When using observational designs (especially
retrospective designs), or mining data, your application can be filed as an exemption, meaning
that it will not require a full-board IRB review. Experimental studies and any study where
something is done to human beings or animals will ALWAYS require a full-board IRB review.

With the FINER framwork, ethical research questions meet all guidelines for protecting human
beings and at-risk populations. It is also extremely important to stick to the protocol that has
been reviewed by the IRB. Any deviations from this original protocol must be approved before
implementing ANYTHING new into a research study or experiment.

Ethical research questions and FINER

Here are some questions to answer when writing ethical research questions with FINER.

1. How will potential participants be recruited?

2. How will potential participants be consented?
3. What steps will be taken for the safety of potential participants?
4. Will any incentives be used to increase participation or response rates?
5. What are the benefits of participation in the study?
6. What are the risks of participation in the study?
7. How will confidentiality and anonymity of participants be upheld?
8. Who will have access to the study data and where will it be stored?

Relevant research questions

The "R" represents the clinical relevance of a research question

Within the FINER framework, the "R" answers the all-encompassing, "So, what?" question.
Relevant research questions influence clinical practice, change protocols, and improve upon
patient outcomes. Relevant research questions also leads to quality improvement, more
precision and accuracy in treatment effects, and make a meaningful contribution to a given body
of knowledge. Lastly, relevant research questions drive future research!

Relevant research questions and FINER

Here are some questions to answer when writing relevant research questions with FINER.

1. Will your study improve upon patient outcomes?

2. Will your study improve upon patient safety?
3. Will your study meet the needs of the patient population that you currently serve?
4. Will your study guide future research endeavors?
5. Can the study results be readily interpreted in the clinical context?
6. Can the study results be easily generalized to relevant patient populations?
7. Can the study results be applied in clinical environments to improve upon patient care?
8. Will the study influence current clinical practice standards in a meaningful way?
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3430448/

PICOT Defined
The PICOT format is a helpful approach for summarizing research questions that explore the effect of
therapy:5

 (P) – Population refers to the sample of subjects you wish to recruit for your study. There may be a fine
balance between defining a sample that is most likely to respond to your intervention (e.g. no co-
morbidity) and one that can be generalized to patients that are likely to be seen in actual practice.

 (I) – Intervention refers to the treatment that will be provided to subjects enrolled in your study.

 (C) – Comparison identifies what you plan on using as a reference group to compare with your treatment
intervention. Many study designs refer to this as the control group. If an existing treatment is considered
the ‘gold standard’, then this should be the comparison group.

 (O) – Outcome represents what result you plan on measuring to examine the effectiveness of your
intervention. Familiar and validated outcome measurement tools relevant to common chiropractic patient
populations may include the Neck Disability Index 6 or Roland-Morris Questionnaire.7 There are, typically, a
multitude of outcome tools available for different clinical populations, each having strengths and
weaknesses.

 (T) – Time describes the duration for your data collection.

Example:

Research Question: In adults with chronic neck pain, what is the minimum dose of manipulation
necessary to produce a clinically important improvement in neck pain compared to supervised exercise at
6 weeks?

 (P) – Population: Adults 18 to 60 years of age, with a clinical diagnosis of chronic mechanical
neck pain who have not received cervical SMT in the past year. Patients with non-mechanical neck
pain or contraindications to cervical manipulation will be excluded.

 (I) – Intervention: Subjects randomized to have manipulation would receive standard rotary or
lateral break diversified technique once, twice, or three times per week over a period of 2, 4, or 6
weeks (see Table 1). These subjects would also receive the same exercise regimen given to the
control group to eliminate exercise as a second variable affecting outcomes.

 (C) – Comparison: A standardized supervised exercise regimen would be used as an active

control group. All subjects, regardless of group assignment, would perform a standardized exercise
regime at each session over a period of 6 weeks. Using this strategy, we will be able to minimize
the non-specific effects due to attending a clinic.

 (O) – Outcome: Changes in neck pain, measured using the 100mm VAS for pain.

 (T) – Time: The outcome would be measured weekly for 6 weeks.

More PICOT:

PICOT FRAMEWORK

While the FINER criteria suggest general aspects of the research question, the PICOT
format proposes a specific framework. Originally introduced in 1995 26 as PICO, it was
later broadened to the current PICOT format, 9 which is now widely accepted by the
scientific community. According to the acronym, a structured research question should
well define its (P) population, (I) intervention, (C) comparator, (O) outcome, and (T) time
frame.

The population can be defined using relevant demographic variables such as gender,
age, geographic location, ethnic group, risk profile or by clinical condition of
interest.1,27 It is important to note that, since carrying out studies with entire populations
is usually not feasible, the target population has to be sampled. The target population is
the group of subjects on which the investigator is to make inferences. The accessible
population, however, are the individuals who are available during recruitment - for
instance, patients from the investigator's working hospital. Finally, the sample
population is the collection of individuals who will be studied, chosen from the
accessible population. Frequently, the sample population represents the individuals from
the accessible population who have consented to participate in the trial. 28 When writing
the research question, the investigator should consider the balance between specifying
a population that will likely respond to the intervention and a sample that will be
representative of the target population, to increase external validity.29

The intervention refers to the exposure or controlled maneuver that will be provided to
enrolled subjects. A description of type of procedure, timing, dose, and product
specifications should be clearly stated.27 The comparator identifies what the
investigator plans on using as a reference group to compare with the main intervention.
In different study designs, it is often referred to as "control group" or "alternative
standard". The comparator may represent a specific intervention or placebo/sham
interventions, but when there is an existing "gold-standard" therapy or practice, it is
usually the chosen option.29 The final aim is to compare the main outcomes of these
underlying intervention groups, given the pre-specified period of time. Desirable
properties of primary outcomes include being objective, reproducible, clinically
available, easily quantifiable, sensitive, and specific.

(S)=Study Design, not finding material on this.

Another sample variation of PICOT

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PICOT-D-Component-Structure_tbl1_282287733