Can Questions Raised by Patients, Communities, Practitioners, or Policymakers Become Research Questions?

Someone outside the research team asks an important question. Can research begin there?

A patient asks why a treatment that works well for some people seems ineffective for others. Teachers want to know whether a new assessment policy is actually improving learning or merely increasing their workload. A community asks why a public program repeatedly fails to reach certain neighborhoods. Policymakers need evidence about what might happen if a regulation changes.

None of these questions necessarily originated in an academic paper. They arise from living with a condition, delivering a service, implementing a policy, working inside a system, or experiencing the consequences of decisions researchers may otherwise encounter only through data.

That does not make them less legitimate as sources of research ideas. In fact, structured research-priority initiatives have shown that patients, carers, practitioners, and researchers can identify different priorities. The challenge is to turn the stakeholder's concern into a rigorous research question without stripping away the problem that made the question important in the first place.

Yes, and stakeholder questions can reveal important uncertainties researchers overlook

Research questions do not have to originate inside academia

Stakeholders can see problems that researchers do not

Different groups encounter different parts of the same phenomenon. Patients experience treatment burden, symptoms, uncertainty, and daily consequences. Practitioners see implementation difficulties and recurring cases. Communities may recognize barriers, inequities, or local conditions that are poorly represented in formal datasets. Policymakers encounter decisions for which existing evidence may be incomplete, poorly timed, or difficult to apply.

These perspectives do not automatically establish what is true. They can, however, reveal what needs to be investigated.

This distinction matters. Stakeholder knowledge can generate questions without being treated as a substitute for systematic evidence. A patient's observation may suggest a phenomenon. A practitioner's recurring problem may expose a possible implementation barrier. A community's concern may reveal an outcome researchers have neglected. Each can become the beginning of inquiry.

Research priorities can differ depending on who is asked

There is empirical evidence that research agendas developed primarily within the research system do not always align with questions prioritized by those who use or experience the resulting knowledge.

Work involving James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships has documented differences between treatment research prioritized by patients and clinicians and treatment research actually being conducted. In one comparison, patient and clinician priorities placed greater emphasis on non-drug interventions than the contemporaneous portfolios of registered trials, particularly commercial trials.

This does not mean stakeholder priorities should automatically replace researcher priorities. It demonstrates something more useful: who participates in identifying questions can influence which uncertainties become visible and which are considered important.

The stakeholder's question and the final research question may not look identical

Questions arising from experience are often expressed in ordinary language:

• Why does this treatment work for some people but not others?
• Why don't families use this service?
• Does all this paperwork actually improve care?
• Why are students avoiding the support program we created for them?
• What happens to small businesses if this regulation changes?

These are legitimate questions, but they may be too broad, contain assumptions, combine several issues, or use terms that need operational definition.

The researcher's role is not to make them sound more academic. It is to identify the uncertainty inside them and determine what evidence could answer it.

Do not translate the question so aggressively that you lose the original problem

This is a subtle risk. Researchers may invite stakeholders to contribute questions, then reshape those questions until they fit familiar constructs, methods, or disciplinary interests.

Imagine patients asking whether treatment fatigue affects their willingness to continue a long-term therapy. Researchers might translate the concern into a standard adherence survey because an established instrument is readily available. That may be appropriate, but it may also miss what patients meant by treatment fatigue.

Before operationalizing the question, ask what the stakeholder is actually trying to understand or decide.

A stakeholder question still needs an evidence check

Importance to stakeholders does not necessarily mean the question remains unanswered. Someone may raise a question because existing evidence has not reached them, because findings are difficult to interpret, or because the answer differs across contexts.

Before launching a new study, examine relevant systematic reviews, primary studies, guidelines, datasets, and other authoritative evidence. Structured priority-setting approaches such as those developed by the James Lind Alliance explicitly include checking proposed questions against existing evidence to determine whether genuine uncertainty remains.

This step can produce several outcomes. The question may indeed be unanswered. It may have a partial answer but important uncertainty remains. It may be answered generally but not under circumstances relevant to the stakeholder. Or research may already provide a sufficiently strong answer, in which case the problem could be one of communication, implementation, or access to evidence rather than missing research.

One person's question does not automatically represent an entire group

A patient does not speak for all patients. A teacher does not represent every teacher. A community leader's priorities may differ from those of less visible community members. Policymakers within different agencies may value different outcomes.

If your research rationale claims that a question is important to a stakeholder group, establish how that conclusion was reached. Depending on the purpose, this might involve broader consultation, surveys, interviews, deliberative workshops, advisory groups, community engagement, or formal priority-setting exercises.

Structured priority-setting partnerships often deliberately include multiple constituencies and stages of refinement and ranking. For example, James Lind Alliance processes have gathered open-ended uncertainties, checked them against evidence, consolidated related questions, conducted interim prioritization, and used stakeholder workshops to agree final priorities.

The broader principle is that stakeholder diversity matters. The loudest or easiest-to-recruit voices should not automatically become synonymous with “the stakeholder perspective.”

Disagreement among stakeholders can itself reveal a research opportunity

Patients, practitioners, communities, and policymakers do not necessarily want the same things. Even within one stakeholder category, priorities may differ.

Research priority exercises have documented differences between patient and professional rankings. Those differences should not always be averaged away. They may reveal competing outcomes, different experiences of risk, conflicting definitions of success, or unequal distributions of burden and benefit.

For example, practitioners may prioritize clinical effectiveness while patients prioritize treatment burden. Policymakers may focus on system cost while communities emphasize accessibility. A research design that recognizes these competing outcomes may be more useful than one that assumes a single definition of value.

Stakeholders can help determine outcomes, not only topics

Researchers sometimes involve stakeholders in deciding what topic to study but retain complete control over what counts as success. Yet the outcome itself may be where stakeholder perspectives matter most.

A treatment trial might focus on a clinical biomarker while patients care more about pain, fatigue, mobility, or the ability to work. An educational intervention may improve test performance while teachers experience an unsustainable increase in workload. A policy may improve an average outcome while worsening access for a particular community.

Asking stakeholders what outcomes matter can therefore change not only the research question but the evidence the study needs to collect.

Stakeholder relevance does not remove methodological requirements

A highly important question can still be too broad, unethical, infeasible, or impossible to answer with the proposed design. Stakeholder importance is one criterion in research prioritization, not a waiver from methodological rigor.

You may need to narrow the population, separate one broad concern into several researchable questions, identify a measurable outcome, develop an appropriate qualitative question, or begin with feasibility research.

Sometimes the question stakeholders most want answered cannot yet be answered directly. A preliminary study may be needed first. The important point is to explain that progression rather than quietly substituting a different question.

Stakeholders can participate beyond question generation

Once stakeholders help identify the question, their contribution need not end. Depending on the research tradition and context, they may contribute to prioritization, study design, recruitment strategies, interpretation, dissemination, implementation, or decisions about which outcomes matter.

The appropriate degree and form of involvement varies. Not every study requires co-production, and stakeholder participation should not be treated as a decorative requirement. The useful question is whether involvement at a particular stage improves relevance, feasibility, interpretation, legitimacy, or another important feature of the research.

Stakeholder questions can expose research opportunities hidden inside practice

A practitioner's recurring question may point toward a change in professional practice that deserves investigation. A community concern may expose a research opportunity inside an everyday problem. A policymaker's question may arise because a new policy creates uncertainty about implementation or effects.

The stakeholder provides the vantage point. Research determines what kind of uncertainty lies underneath it.

From a practitioner's complaint to a stakeholder-centered research question

The final question is more technical than the original complaint, but it still addresses what made practitioners ask the question: whether the burden they experience produces the intended benefit.

Stakeholder involvement does not mean accepting every question unchanged

Preserve the concern while refining the question

If a stakeholder raises a question that seems important, treat it as an invitation to investigate rather than as either a ready-made protocol or an anecdote to dismiss.

A useful formulation is:

“Stakeholders are trying to understand or decide ________. Their question arises because ________. Existing evidence does not adequately resolve ________. A researchable version of the question is therefore ________.”

If the final blank bears little resemblance to the first, revisit the translation. Somewhere between stakeholder consultation and methodology, the original problem may have gone missing.

Before turning a stakeholder concern into a research study

Common questions about stakeholder-generated research questions

The people living with a problem can help identify what research needs to ask

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.