When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.

The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.

In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
  • Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
  • Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least two different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
  • Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. It is suggested that an Intervention-type PICOT question be developed as these seem to work best for this course.

By Day 3 of Week 4

Post a brief description of your clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question. Describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.

  • Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

     

    Required Readings

    Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

    · Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)

    · Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)

     

    Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N

    Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

     

    Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean operators and nesting. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html

     

    Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79

    Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

     

    Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58

    Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

     

    Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e

    Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-c). Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/cinahlsearchhelp

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-d). Evidence-based practice research: Joanna Briggs Institute search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/jbisearchhelp

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-e). Evidence-based practice research: MEDLINE search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-g). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Introduction to keyword searching. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-h). Quick Answers: How do I find a systematic review article related to health, medicine, or nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72670

     

    Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/types#s-lg-box-1520654

    · Grid View

    · List View

      Excellent Good Fair Poor
    Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

    Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

     

    Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

     

    Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

    Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

     

    Supported by at least three credible sources.

     

    Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

    Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

     

    One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

     

    Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

     

    Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    Post is cited with two credible sources.

     

    Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

     

    Contains some APA formatting errors.

    0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

    Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

     

    Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

     

    Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

     

    Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    Contains only one or no credible sources.

     

    Not written clearly or concisely.

     

    Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

     

    Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

    Posts main post by day 3.

    0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

    Does not post by day 3.

    First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

    Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

     

    Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

     

    Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

    Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

    Response is on topic and may have some depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

     

    Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

    0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

    Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are missing.

     

    No credible sources are cited.

    Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

    Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

     

    Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

     

    Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

    Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

    Response is on topic and may have some depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

     

    Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

    0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

    Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are missing.

     

    No credible sources are cited.

    Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

    Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

    0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

    Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.