Tag Archives: PICOT

authorship, Case study, Clinical significance, Conferences, content analysis, Correlation research, Data, Data collection, Descriptive research, Disseminating findings, Ethics, Evidence hierarchy, Historical research, hypothesis, Literature review, Meta-analysis, Methodologic research, Methods, mixed methods, Narrative research, non-experimental research, nonrandom trials, nursing research, Observational research, Outcome measurement, Paradigm, PICO, pilot study, Poster presentation, Prospective design, Publication, Publishing, Qualitative research, quality improvement, quantitative research, quasi-experimental, Questionnaires, RCT, reading research, Reliability & validity, research, Research design, research methods, Resident research project, statistical significance, Writing

New book: “Doing Research: A Practical Guide”

1 Comment

Author: Martha “Marty” E. Farrar Highfield

NOW AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY & SOON IN PRINT.

CHECK OUT: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-79044-7

This book provides a step-by-step summary of how to do clinical research. It explains what research is and isn’t, where to begin and end, and the meaning of key terms. A project planning worksheet is included and can be used as readers work their way through the book in developing a research protocol. The purpose of this book is to empower curious clinicians who want data-based answers.

Doing Research is a concise, user-friendly guide to conducting research, rather than a comprehensive research text. The book contains 12 main chapters followed by the protocol worksheet. Chapter 1 offers a dozen tips to get started, Chapter 2 defines research, and Chapters 3-9 focus on planning. Chapters 10-12 then guide readers through challenges of conducting a study, getting answers from the data, and disseminating results. Useful key points, tips, and alerts are strewn throughout the book to advise and encourage readers.

EBP, Evidence based nursing, Literature review, nursing research, research

PICOT: The same & Not the Same

Leave a comment

Writing out your clinical question using the acronym PICOT may be different depending on whether you are planning to

  • do research (fill gaps in our knowledge) or
  • find & use best evidence in practice (EBP/evidence-based practice).

PICOT stands for Population, Intervention, Comparison intervention, Outcome to be measured, and Timing of the measurement. The reason that PICOT is sometimes written a bit differently for research than for EBP projects is that PICOT is used to generate the most helpful literature search terms.

RESEARCH vs. EBP PICOT-—

  • In research you may be testing a very specific intervention because available evidence allows you to predict what intervention might be helpful. That means you want to specify the particular intervention (I) in which you are interested.
  • In EBP you may want to find out if an effective intervention for the problem already exists? And if so, what is it? That means when writing PICOT, you should NOT specify the I (intervention). Identify the P (population) and O (desired outcome), but for I (intervention) use a general term like “methods,” “techniques,” “strategies,” and so on. This will give you a richer overview of what others tested already. [Note: If you are finding literature that suggests a particular intervention is most effective, you might decide to insert that particular intervention in your PICOT and hence in your search terms.]

PRACTICE: Pick a clinical problem that is bugging you and try out an EBP PICOT vs a research PICOT. Compare results.

REFERENCE & FOR MORE: Check out https://libraryguides.nau.edu/c.php?g=665927&p=4682772