| name | research-synthesis-guidelines |
| description | Research documentation and evidence synthesis framework for MYCURE healthcare products using HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence grading, triangulation methodology, and rigorous citation standards. Auto-activates for research documentation, evidence grading, healthcare systems analysis, user research synthesis, market analysis, competitive research. Includes Philippine healthcare context (LGU health systems, FHISIS, PhilHealth). |
Research Synthesis Guidelines
Systematic framework for documenting, synthesizing, and grading research evidence for MYCURE healthcare products with emphasis on Philippine healthcare context.
When This Skill Activates
- Documenting user research findings
- Synthesizing market analysis or competitive research
- Grading evidence quality and confidence levels
- Writing research reports or insights documents
- Analyzing Philippine healthcare systems (LGU, FHISIS, PhilHealth)
- Conducting stakeholder interviews or field studies
- Evaluating healthcare workflows and pain points
Core Principles
1. Evidence-Based Decision Making
All product decisions must be grounded in research.
Why:
- Healthcare products impact patient care
- Assumptions can lead to dangerous design flaws
- Philippine healthcare context has unique requirements
- Stakeholder buy-in requires credible evidence
2. Transparent Confidence Grading
Every finding must be labeled with confidence level.
Why:
- Not all evidence is equal quality
- Teams need to know which findings to trust
- HIGH confidence findings drive major decisions
- LOW confidence findings require further investigation
3. Triangulation for Validation
Multiple sources strengthen findings.
Why:
- Single sources can be biased or incomplete
- Triangulation reduces error
- Philippine healthcare varies by region (urban vs. rural)
- Cross-validation ensures accuracy
Confidence Grading Framework
HIGH Confidence
Definition: Finding is well-supported by multiple high-quality sources with consistent evidence.
Requirements (need ALL of these):
- ✅ 3+ independent sources confirming the finding
- ✅ Primary research included (interviews, observations, surveys)
- ✅ Recent data (within 2 years for healthcare)
- ✅ Philippine-specific evidence (not extrapolated from other countries)
- ✅ Consistent across all sources (no major contradictions)
Example:
## Finding: Manual registration takes 12-15 minutes per patient [HIGH CONFIDENCE]
**Evidence:**
1. **Direct observation** - Observed 15 patient registrations at 3 Manila clinics,
average time 14.2 minutes (June 2024)
2. **Stakeholder interviews** - 8 clinic administrators reported 12-15 minute average
registration time (May-June 2024)
3. **DOH data** - Department of Health study cited 13.5 minute average for
Metro Manila clinics (2023)
**Triangulation:** Primary observation + stakeholder reports + government data = HIGH
MEDIUM Confidence
Definition: Finding has some support but gaps in evidence quality, recency, or triangulation.
Characteristics (one or more):
- ⚠️ 1-2 sources (not fully triangulated)
- ⚠️ Secondary research only (no primary data collected)
- ⚠️ Dated evidence (2-5 years old)
- ⚠️ Extrapolated from similar contexts (other SE Asian countries)
- ⚠️ Minor inconsistencies between sources
Example:
## Finding: LGU health workers prefer mobile apps over desktop [MEDIUM CONFIDENCE]
**Evidence:**
1. **Industry report** - 2022 Southeast Asia digital health survey showed 68%
preference for mobile in rural health settings (regional, not PH-specific)
2. **Anecdotal** - 2 RHU staff mentioned preferring mobile during informal
conversations (small sample)
**Gaps:** No Philippine-specific data, small sample size, older regional data
**Recommendation:** Conduct targeted survey of Philippine LGU health workers before
making mobile-first decision
LOW Confidence
Definition: Finding is speculative, unsupported, or based on weak evidence. Requires further investigation.
Characteristics (one or more):
- ❌ Single source or anecdotal only
- ❌ No primary research
- ❌ Outdated (5+ years old)
- ❌ Not Philippine-specific (US/EU data extrapolated)
- ❌ Contradictory evidence exists
- ❌ Assumption not validated
Example:
## Finding: Clinics willing to pay ₱50,000/month for MYCURE [LOW CONFIDENCE]
**Evidence:**
1. **Assumption** - Based on perceived value, not actual willingness-to-pay data
2. **No validation** - Have not asked clinics about pricing
**Status:** HYPOTHESIS ONLY - Requires pricing research before proceeding
**Next steps:** Conduct pricing sensitivity survey with 20+ target clinics
Triangulation Methodology
Triangulation = Using multiple data sources or methods to validate findings.
Types of Triangulation
1. Data Triangulation (Most Common)
Combine different data sources:
Sources:
- Primary research: Interviews, observations, surveys you conduct
- Secondary research: Published studies, reports, government data
- Internal data: Usage analytics, support tickets, sales feedback
Example:
Finding: Inventory mismanagement costs clinics 15-20% of medication budget
**Data triangulation:**
1. **Primary:** Interviewed 10 clinic administrators, 8 reported 15-25% loss
2. **Secondary:** DOH 2023 report cited 18% average medication wastage
3. **Internal:** MYCURE pilot clinic reduced waste from 22% to 5% with inventory tracking
**Result:** HIGH confidence - three independent data types align
2. Method Triangulation
Use different research methods:
Methods:
- Interviews (qualitative depth)
- Surveys (quantitative breadth)
- Observation (behavioral truth)
- Analytics (usage patterns)
Example:
Finding: Receptionists skip validation fields to save time
**Method triangulation:**
1. **Interview:** Receptionists admitted skipping non-required fields "to move faster"
2. **Observation:** Watched 5 receptionists skip 70% of optional fields
3. **Analytics:** Form completion data shows optional fields filled <30% of the time
**Result:** HIGH confidence - stated behavior matches observed and measured behavior
3. Philippine Healthcare Context Triangulation
Validate across different Philippine healthcare settings:
Settings:
- Private clinics (urban, well-resourced)
- LGU health centers (rural, limited resources)
- Government hospitals (public sector)
- RHUs/BHSs (barangay-level primary care)
Example:
Finding: Internet connectivity is unreliable for healthcare IT systems
**Context triangulation:**
1. **Urban private clinics:** Reliable fiber connection, 99% uptime
2. **RHUs (rural):** 2G/3G only, frequent outages, <50% reliability
3. **LGU city health offices:** DSL or fiber, 80-90% reliability
**Result:** MEDIUM-HIGH confidence - varies by setting, MYCURE must work offline
Citation Standards
Why Citations Matter
Credibility:
- Allows verification of claims
- Shows rigor and thoroughness
- Enables future researchers to build on work
- Required for stakeholder trust
Citation Format
Use this structure:
## Finding Title [CONFIDENCE LEVEL]
**Summary:** [1-2 sentence finding statement]
**Evidence:**
1. **[Source Type]** - [Name/Organization], "[Title or Description]",
[Date], [Specific data point or quote]
2. **[Source Type]** - [Name/Organization], "[Title or Description]",
[Date], [Specific data point or quote]
3. **[Source Type]** - [Name/Organization], "[Title or Description]",
[Date], [Specific data point or quote]
**Triangulation assessment:** [How sources validate each other]
**Limitations:** [Any gaps, biases, or caveats]
**Implications:** [What this means for product/design decisions]
Source Types
Interviews:
**Interview** - Dr. Maria Santos (General Practitioner, Manila Clinic),
"Patient registration currently takes 15 minutes on average",
June 15, 2024, Stakeholder interview
Observations:
**Direct observation** - Field study at 3 Metro Manila clinics,
14.2 minute average registration time (n=15 patients),
June 10-12, 2024, User research
Documents:
**Government report** - Department of Health Philippines,
"Philippine Health Facility Survey 2023", Published March 2023,
Page 42: "Average patient wait time 45 minutes in public health centers"
Surveys:
**Survey** - MYCURE target market survey (n=50 clinic administrators),
"73% report using paper-based records as primary system",
Conducted May 2024
Analytics:
**Usage data** - MYCURE pilot program analytics (n=5 clinics, 6 months),
"Registration time reduced from 15min to 5min average",
Jan-June 2024
Websites:
**Online source** - PhilHealth official website,
"PhilHealth Claims Processing Guidelines",
Accessed June 20, 2024,
URL: https://www.philhealth.gov.ph/claims/
Research Report Template
---
title: "[Research Topic]"
research_type: User Research | Market Analysis | Competitive Analysis | Field Study
date_conducted: 2024-06-15
researchers: [Names]
status: draft | final
confidentiality: internal
---
# [Research Topic]
## Executive Summary
[3-5 bullet points of key findings with confidence levels]
- Finding 1 [HIGH CONFIDENCE]
- Finding 2 [MEDIUM CONFIDENCE]
- Finding 3 [HIGH CONFIDENCE]
---
## Research Methodology
**Type:** [User interviews | Surveys | Field observations | Document analysis]
**Sample:**
- Size: [Number of participants/sources]
- Description: [Who/what was studied]
- Selection: [How sample was chosen]
**Dates:** [When research conducted]
**Location:** [Where research took place]
**Limitations:**
- [Limitation 1]
- [Limitation 2]
---
## Findings
### Finding 1: [Title] [HIGH CONFIDENCE]
**Summary:** [1-2 sentence description]
**Evidence:**
1. **[Source type]** - [Citation]
2. **[Source type]** - [Citation]
3. **[Source type]** - [Citation]
**Triangulation:** [How sources validate finding]
**Implications:** [What this means for MYCURE]
---
### Finding 2: [Title] [MEDIUM CONFIDENCE]
[Same structure...]
---
## Recommendations
### Immediate Actions (HIGH Confidence Findings)
1. **Recommendation 1** - Based on Finding 1
- Action: [Specific next step]
- Owner: [Who should do it]
- Timeline: [When]
### Further Investigation Needed (LOW/MEDIUM Confidence)
1. **Research Gap 1** - Finding 3 needs validation
- Method: [How to validate]
- Timeline: [When to conduct]
---
## Appendices
### Appendix A: Interview Guide
[Interview questions used]
### Appendix B: Raw Data
[Survey results, observation notes, etc.]
### Appendix C: Sources
[Full bibliography of secondary sources]
Philippine Healthcare Context
Key Systems to Understand
FHISIS (Field Health Service Information System):
- DOH reporting system for LGU health centers
- Monthly reporting requirements
- Specific data formats and fields
- Research implications: MYCURE must support FHISIS export
PhilHealth:
- National health insurance
- Claims processing requirements
- Accreditation standards
- Research implications: Integration needs for billing
LGU Health Structure:
- Provincial Health Office (PHO)
- City/Municipal Health Office (CHO/MHO)
- Rural Health Units (RHUs)
- Barangay Health Stations (BHS)
- Research implications: Varying resource levels, connectivity, literacy
Research Considerations
Urban vs. Rural:
- Infrastructure varies dramatically
- Internet connectivity: Urban 90%+ vs. Rural 30-50%
- Staff technical literacy: Urban high vs. Rural mixed
- Don't extrapolate urban findings to rural contexts
Public vs. Private:
- Resource levels differ significantly
- Public: Government budget constraints, high volume
- Private: Better resources, lower volume
- Research both sectors separately
Regional Variations:
- Metro Manila ≠ Provinces ≠ BARMM
- Language: English/Filipino in NCR, regional languages in provinces
- Validate findings across multiple regions
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing research:
- All findings graded (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- HIGH confidence = 3+ sources triangulated
- Citations complete with dates and specifics
- Philippine-specific data (not extrapolated)
- Recent evidence (within 2 years preferred)
- Methodology documented (reproducible)
- Limitations acknowledged (no overclaiming)
- Recommendations actionable (tied to findings)
- Executive summary for stakeholders
- Raw data preserved in appendices
Common Pitfalls
❌ Don't Do This
Treating all evidence equally:
Finding: Clinics want mobile-first design
Evidence: Read blog post about mobile trends
Confidence: HIGH ← WRONG
Extrapolating without validation:
Finding: Philippine clinics will behave like US clinics
Evidence: US healthcare IT study
Confidence: MEDIUM ← WRONG (should be LOW)
Ignoring contradictory evidence:
Finding: All clinics prefer cloud-based
Evidence: 5 clinics said yes
[Ignored: 3 clinics said no due to connectivity]
Confidence: HIGH ← WRONG (cherry-picking)
✅ Do This
Grade honestly:
Finding: Clinics may prefer mobile-first design
Evidence: General mobile trends blog post (not healthcare-specific)
Confidence: LOW
Next step: Conduct targeted survey of Philippine clinics
Validate locally:
Finding: Philippine LGU health workers face connectivity challenges
Evidence:
1. Interview: 10 RHU staff in Bulacan reported frequent outages
2. Observation: Visited 5 RHUs, saw 3G-only connectivity
3. DOH report: 2023 study cited 40% of rural health centers lack reliable internet
Confidence: HIGH (triangulated, Philippine-specific, recent)
Summary
Research synthesis framework:
- Grade every finding: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence
- Triangulate: 3+ sources for HIGH confidence
- Cite rigorously: Enable verification
- Context matters: Philippine healthcare is unique
- Be honest: Acknowledge limitations and gaps
Confidence requirements:
- HIGH: 3+ sources, primary research, recent, PH-specific, consistent
- MEDIUM: 1-2 sources, some gaps in quality/recency
- LOW: Single source, outdated, assumptions, contradictory
Use research to drive decisions:
- HIGH confidence → Act with confidence
- MEDIUM confidence → Proceed with caution, validate further
- LOW confidence → Do NOT base major decisions, research more
Remember: In healthcare, bad research leads to bad products. Bad products harm patients. Grade honestly, cite thoroughly, validate rigorously.