Some major research reports have a section called findings, which form the greater part of a report’s body. Findings are not the same as a conclusion. Findings summarize the results of a survey, or outcomes of a research study or other data gathering. They are factual and, unlike a conclusion, do not contain observations or opinions drawn from the results. This allows the reader to look at the data objectively without the writer's interpretation. The following extracts demonstrate the difference between findings and conclusions in the same report.
Findings
|
|
Conclusions
|
The principal findings of the evaluation were as follows:
- The programme is coordinated by AAHI, with two national coordinators, Dr Xxx Xxxxxxx and Dr Yyy Yyyyyyy. The programme is well organized and builds on the strengths of the AAHI, the health infrastructure and the University of Buenos Aires. A full-time programme secretary has been appointed, with funding from LUSIDA, but both national coordinators work in a part-time, unpaid capacity, despite devoting a considerable amount of time to the programme.
- A national Executive Committee is responsible for the planning and implementation of the programme. The Committee comprises the two national coordinators and two representatives of the Argentinean Association of Technicians in Haemotherapy and Immunohaematology.
- A national Development Committee has also been established to assist in the development of the programme: membership includes representatives of the Ministry of Health, LUSIDA, experts in HIV/AIDS and X. Xxxxx, and an expert in distance education from the University of Buenos Aires …
|
- The findings of the evaluation exceeded the expectations of the WHO consultants. They confirmed the success of the distance learning programme in blood safety in Argentina, which provides an excellent model for other countries wishing to establish similar programmes.
- There has been an improvement in individuals' knowledge and understanding in all subject areas covered by the WHO distance learning materials. More importantly, this is reflected in significant improvements in services as a direct result of the programme. The impact of the programme varies according to the level of the health system, with small centres showing dramatic improvements in individual performance and in the strengthening of services. Nevertheless, even the most sophisticated centres reported positive changes in attitudes and performance. The impact extends beyond blood transfusion services, particularly in the area of biosafety. The medical director of the small district hospital in Tilcara, Jujuy Province, for example, reported that the work undertaken by participants in the programme had directly stimulated the introduction of biosafety procedures throughout the entire hospital.
- The positive outcomes of the programme were evident in a short period of time. Fundamental changes in practise were reported in all the centres visited, even where participants had not yet completed the programme.
|
