Presentation on Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusions:

Contents

Introduction and Objectives

Discussion

- Summary of Key Findings

- Interpretation and Explanation of Results

- Comparison to Previous Research

- Implications of Findings

- Limitations

Recommendations

- Recommendations for Practice

- Recommendations for Future Research

Conclusions

- Restating Purpose and Objectives

- Summary of Main Findings

- Drawing Logical Conclusions

- Contributions to New Knowledge

References

Introduction and Objectives

The discussion, recommendations, and conclusions section of a research paper plays a crucial
role in demonstrating the significance and implications of the study. The purpose of this
presentation is to provide an in-depth overview of how to effectively structure and write these
closing sections of a research paper.

The objectives are:

- To explain the purpose and importance of the discussion, recommendations, and conclusions
sections
- To describe best practices and strategies for writing these sections

- To provide examples to illustrate key points

This presentation will summarize key findings from the literature on writing effective closing
sections. It will also use excerpts from published studies to demonstrate best practices. A detailed
breakdown of the structure and content to include in each section will be provided.

Discussion

The discussion section allows the researcher to interpret the study results and explain how they
relate to the original research problem and objectives. According to Ness (2022), the discussion
should explain the meaning of the findings, compare results to prior studies, acknowledge
limitations, and highlight the significance and implications. The key elements are:

Summary of Key Findings

Begin the discussion by summarizing and highlighting the major findings as they relate to the
research questions or hypotheses. Use similar wording to that presented in the results section.

Example:

The results of this study indicate that the new drug treatment protocol led to significantly higher
rates of remission compared to the standard treatment (75% vs. 55%, p<0.05).

Interpretation and Explanation of Results

Next, interpret and explain why the results occurred as they did. Compare findings to previous
studies from the literature review. Provide possible explanations for unexpected findings.
Discuss whether the results confirmed or diverged from original hypotheses and prior research.
Example:

The significantly higher remission rate with the new drug regimen aligns with the findings of
Smith et al. (2019) and confirms our original hypothesis. The addition of immunotherapy drugs
likely enhanced the body’s immune response against cancer cells, leading to improved outcomes.
This builds upon the work of Jones & Brown (2020) showing the efficacy of immunotherapy and
chemotherapy combinations.

Comparison to Previous Research

Explicitly compare key results to the existing literature reviewed earlier in the paper. Note
where findings substantiate, contradict, or extend prior studies.

Example:

Unlike Chen's (2018) study which found no improvement with the combined regimen, our
findings demonstrated a 20% higher remission rate. This discrepancy could be due to our larger
sample size and the use of more targeted immunotherapy drugs that were FDA-approved after
Chen's study was conducted. Our work confirms and strengthens the conclusions of similar
clinical trials by Lee et al. (2022).

Implications of Findings

Discuss the implications and significance of the findings. How do they help advance knowledge
in the field? What are the practical applications and uses?

Example:

These results have important implications for cancer treatment protocols. The efficacy of
combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy is clearly demonstrated, and this regimen should
become the new standard of care for patients with this type of advanced cancer. Oncologists
should incorporate these more targeted immunotherapies into treatment plans.
Limitations

Acknowledge any limitations or weaknesses in the study methodology, design, or scope that may
have affected the results. State how this influences interpretation and application of findings.

Example:

This study was limited to patients at a single cancer center, which restricts generalizability. The
sample was also predominantly white, and further research is needed on diverse populations. The
short 6 month follow-up period also limits understanding of long-term remission rates. These
limitations should be considered when applying the findings.

Recommendations

This section provides suggestions for practice and future research based on the conclusions.
Recommendations should be concrete, feasible, and linked to the study objectives and findings.

Recommendations for Practice

Make specific, evidence-based recommendations for practical application in the field. Suggest
changes to programs, protocols, practices, or policies.

Example:

Based on the improved outcomes demonstrated, oncologists should adopt the combined
immunotherapy-chemotherapy regimen as the new standard of care for patients with advanced
stage III gallbladder cancer. Hospitals and cancer centers should update their treatment protocols
and provide training to ensure proper administration.

Recommendations for Future Research

Identify areas needing further investigation, especially to address limitations of the current study.
Recommend studies to expand generalizability, test new hypotheses, follow up long-term, or
replicate findings.
Example:

Further research with larger, more diverse patient samples is needed to confirm generalizability
of findings across populations. Additionally, studies should examine long-term remission and
survival rates over a 5-year follow-up period. Other combination therapies and dosing regimes
should also be investigated to optimize effectiveness.

Conclusions

Succinctly summarize key aspects of the discussion to provide closure. The conclusions should
relate directly back to the original research problem and objectives.

Restating Purpose and Objectives

Briefly restate the research problem and objectives addressed by the study.

Example:

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of combining immunotherapy and
chemotherapy drugs for treating advanced stage III gallbladder cancer. The objectives were to
compare this combination regimen to standard chemotherapy alone in terms of achieving cancer
remission after 6 months of treatment.

Summary of Main Findings

Summarize the main findings in relation to the objectives and hypotheses. Include concise data
to illustrate key results.

Example:

The key finding was that the immunotherapy-chemotherapy regimen resulted in a significantly
higher 6-month cancer remission rate compared to chemotherapy alone (75% vs. 55%, p<0.05).
This aligned with our hypothesis.

Drawing Logical Conclusions

Based on the findings, provide logical conclusions relating back to the research problem. Ensure
conclusions do not extend beyond what the results can support.
Example:

We can conclusively determine from these findings that the combined immunotherapy-
chemotherapy protocol is superior to standard chemotherapy alone for treating advanced stage III
gallbladder cancer. This regimen should become the new evidence-based standard of care.

Contributions to New Knowledge

End with a statement of how the study contributes to new knowledge and understanding in the
field. Highlight the original aspects of the research.

Example:

This study provides definitive evidence of the advantages of combining specific

immunotherapies with chemotherapy to improve outcomes for gallbladder cancer patients. The
findings make a significant contribution to establishing more effective evidence-based treatment
protocols for this type of cancer.

In summary, the discussion, recommendations, and conclusions are critical for elucidating the
meaning, implications, and contributions of a research study. Following the strategies outlined in
this presentation will enable drafting of these sections in a clear, concise, and impactful manner.
The next steps will be revising the paper based on committee feedback before final publication.
Effective communication of findings and their significance is the ultimate aim for contributing to
scientific advancement in any field.
References

Billings, D.M. and Halstead, J.A., 2012. Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty. Elsevier
Health Sciences.

Caulley, L., Wadey, V. and Freeman, R., 2008. Learning to discuss: Strategies for improving the
quality of argumentation in large online classes. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 9(2).

Ness, L.R., 2022. Discussion and Conclusion. In: Writing an Applied Master’s Thesis or
Doctoral Dissertation: A Complete Guide. [online] Available at:
<https://donaldness.com/discussion-and-conclusion/> [Accessed 21 October 2023].

Ogden, R., 2022. Discussion Section: Explaining Your Findings. In: Writing in Psychology.
[online] Available at: <https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/chapter/discussion-section-
explaining-your-findings/> [Accessed 21 October 2023].