Abstract
Peter Drucker pointed out an important distinction between 'doing things right' and 'doing the right thing', which recognised that all problems are embedded in a context and thus can only be understood within their unique contextual setting. Contemporary research practices in clinical medicine often regards contextual factors as potential confounders that will bias effect estimates and thus must be avoided. However rigorous, research devoid of context ultimately deprives users of understanding of the support factors that make research transferable to policy decisions or managing care of individual patients-it stands in the way of 'doing the right thing' in 'real life' settings. Appreciating that all problems are embedded in a greater context means that one should not ignore their interconnected and interdependent systemic nature, that is, every variable is simultaneously dependent and independent. This is the reason for the cascading effects and feedback loops witnessed in disease progression and policy efforts. We discuss the need for researchers to a-priori consider the context of their research question as well as the structural relationships of the variables under investigation, which in turn provides the basis for choosing the most appropriate research design. We have a moral imperative to first 'do the right thing'-ask questions that address the contextual needs of our patients, and then to 'do it right'-choose the best research method to answer this contextually framed need. Only then will our research efforts have meaningful and lasting impacts on patient care.