Recommended resources
The freely available resources this lesson will direct you to.
Hello, and welcome. This course develops the language needed to move from a concern in clinical laboratory practice to a well-founded study. We begin with the most basic question: what makes something a research problem? Later lessons will examine how to identify and refine one, and how to express the resulting research aim and objectives.
In this lesson, you will define a research problem in clinical laboratory sciences and see why a difficulty in the laboratory does not automatically require research. The distinction matters whether the work concerns specimen handling, test performance, or the interpretation of results for patient care.
What makes a problem a research problem?
Suppose a laboratory instrument stops working. That is a serious operational problem, but if its fault is known and the established repair procedure works, a new study may not be needed. Now suppose a laboratory repeatedly encounters results that are difficult to interpret, and neither its existing data nor available evidence establishes why. Investigation could provide knowledge needed to decide what to do. That is the beginning of a research problem.
Read the following section for a general definition before we adapt it to the laboratory setting.
Biomedical Research: The Research Problem Matters - PMC
Read the section “Definition and characteristics of the research problem” for its account of the difference between a problem needing investigation and a question used to investigate it.
Start with the definition and criteria. Continue through the paragraph ending “A trivial research problem wastes resources,” then stop before “Identifying a research problem.” Focus particularly on the difference between the current and ideal states, and on the absence of an acceptable solution.
The article’s idea of a hurdle is useful because it requires us to name a goal. In clinical laboratory sciences, that goal might be a sufficiently reliable result, a timely report, or an interpretation that supports an appropriate clinical decision. The hurdle might be an unresolved source of measurement error, uncertainty about whether a method performs adequately in a particular setting, or insufficient evidence to interpret a finding.
Two conditions help distinguish this from a complaint about how things are going:
- There is a meaningful difference between the current state and the state needed. Results may currently be too uncertain to support a decision that requires reliable measurement.
- An adequate answer or solution is not yet available for the issue at hand. If an established procedure already resolves it, the immediate task may be to apply that procedure rather than conduct research.
These conditions are not a demand for perfect laboratory performance. Every measurement has limitations. The point is to identify a particular, consequential uncertainty that systematic investigation could clarify.
The diagram below places identification of the problem at the beginning of a wider research process.
The diagram’s later stages show what research may make possible. An investigation can reduce uncertainty without immediately producing a solution ready for implementation. First, we need to state clearly what remains unresolved.
A definition for clinical laboratory sciences
A research problem in clinical laboratory sciences is a significant, investigable difficulty or uncertainty concerning laboratory measurements, procedures, results, or their use in care, for which existing knowledge or practice does not yet provide an adequate answer in the relevant context.
بالعربية: مشكلة البحث هي صعوبة أو فجوة معرفية مهمة تتعلق بالفحوص أو الإجراءات أو النتائج المخبرية واستخدامها في الرعاية الصحية، ولا تتوافر لها إجابة كافية بعد، ويمكن دراستها بصورة منهجية.
Each part of the definition does work. Significant means resolving the uncertainty could matter—for the quality of evidence, the reliability of testing, or the decisions made using results. Investigable means observations or data could help address it. The reference to a relevant context prevents us from assuming that a finding established elsewhere automatically answers every local concern; it also prevents us from calling something a research gap merely because we have not yet looked up the existing evidence.
Consider a hypothetical example. A hospital laboratory receives outpatient blood samples after varying transport times. Staff are concerned that, under their actual collection and transport conditions, delays before processing might affect reported potassium concentrations enough to change how results are interpreted. They do not yet have adequate evidence to establish whether this happens in their service or how much it matters.
The research problem is not simply “transport is slow.” It is the unresolved possibility that the current specimen-handling process may yield potassium results whose reliability for their intended clinical use is uncertain. The desired state is results reliable enough for that use. Whether the concern is justified must be investigated; the example does not assume that the delays have caused inaccurate results.
This wording keeps three things separate: an observed circumstance (variable transport times), an uncertainty requiring evidence (their effect on results in this setting), and a possible consequence (difficulty interpreting a result for care). It does not claim a cause or a patient outcome before the evidence exists.
Why the clinical context belongs in the definition
Laboratory research can examine analytical performance, but the reason an issue matters often depends on how a result will be used. A small measurement difference may be unimportant in one application and consequential in another. Defining the problem therefore requires more than naming an instrument, analyte, or technique.
The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) guide discusses the research question rather than offering a separate definition of the problem. Read this short passage for its emphasis on a defined situation and clinical context. We will study the problem–question distinction more fully in the next lesson.
Read the IFCC guide’s discussion of how a question in laboratory medicine grows out of an identified problem and needs a clinical context.
In Chapter 5, subsection 5.2, “The research question” (around printed pp. 34–35), read the opening discussion. Stop at the sentence ending “important and practicable,” before the guide introduces criteria for formulating a question. Notice its references to a defined situation, clinical context, and gaps or problems identified through knowledge of the field and its literature.
The IFCC guide emphasizes beginning a study with a focused question; the biomedical article emphasizes defining the problem before narrowing it into a question. These are compatible teaching perspectives. The problem explains what is unresolved and why it merits investigation. A question expresses what the study will seek to find out about it.
For the potassium example, knowing only that a particular test is of interest would tell us little. We need to know that samples arrive after variable transport times, that the adequacy of the resulting measurements is uncertain in this setting, and that the uncertainty could affect interpretation. Those details give the proposed investigation its laboratory and clinical meaning.
The same definition applies beyond clinical chemistry. A microbiology laboratory might face uncertainty about whether an observed pattern in blood-culture contamination reflects its collection process. A transfusion service might lack adequate evidence about the performance of a procedure under its operating conditions. Neither concern becomes a research problem merely by being inconvenient. It becomes one when an important uncertainty remains that a study could reasonably address.
Keeping the definition precise
It is tempting to call any undesirable observation a research problem. Three comparisons help guard against that mistake.
A known fault is not necessarily an unanswered problem. If routine quality control detects a calibration failure and an established corrective procedure resolves it, the laboratory has work to do, but it does not yet have a reason to undertake a study.
An unfamiliar fact is not necessarily a knowledge gap. A researcher’s personal uncertainty may disappear after consulting validated guidance or published evidence. Checking what is already known is essential before claiming that an answer is unavailable.
A broad ambition is not yet a defined problem. “Improve diagnostic testing” describes a worthwhile goal but says nothing about what currently prevents it, for whom, or what knowledge is missing. By contrast, uncertainty about whether results produced under specified specimen-handling conditions remain reliable identifies a potential hurdle that can be investigated.
For now, you do not need to turn the potassium concern into a formal research question or set of objectives. The foundation is the definition: name the consequential gap between what is happening and what is needed, and identify the uncertainty that existing answers do not adequately resolve.
Conclusion
A clinical laboratory research problem is not just a topic, an equipment failure, or a wish to improve care. It is a significant, researchable uncertainty or difficulty involving laboratory work or its clinical use, for which an adequate answer is not yet available in the relevant context. Stating the current situation, the desired state, and what remains unknown makes that definition concrete without presuming what the study will find.
Next, we will distinguish the research problem from a broad subject, a research topic, and the focused research question used to investigate it.