Post A Clinically Relevant Research Question Using The PICO ✓ Solved

Post A Clinically Relevant Research Question Using The Picot

Post a clinically relevant research question using the PICOT format. How did you arrive at this topic and question? Why is it important? The question's uniqueness is to develop an evidence-based practice supported with current knowledge about a proper and new way of wound care, treatment.

PICOT stands for:

  • Population/ Patient Problem: Who is your patient? (Disease or Health status, age, race, sex)
  • Intervention: What do you plan to do for the patient? (Specific tests, therapies, medications)
  • Comparison: What is the alternative to your plan? (ie. No treatment, different type of treatment, etc.)
  • Outcome: What outcome do you seek? (Less symptoms, no symptoms, full health, etc.)
  • Time: What is the time frame? (This element is not always included.)

Your PICOT question will fall under one of these types: Therapy/Prevention, Diagnosis, Etiology, Prognosis. Use the PICOT format to break down your question into smaller parts and identify keywords:

  • Patient / Population
  • Intervention / Indicator
  • Compare / Control
  • Outcome
  • Time / Type of Study or Question

If you have questions, let me know.

Paper For Above Instructions

Research Question Using the PICOT Format

The chosen research question following the PICOT format is: “In adults aged 60 and above with chronic diabetic ulcers (P), how does the use of advanced bioengineered skin substitutes (I) compared to traditional dressings (C) affect wound healing rates (O) over a period of 12 weeks (T)?”

Rationale for Topic Selection

Diabetic ulcers are a prevalent and debilitating complication associated with diabetes, affecting millions of elderly individuals globally. In the United States alone, the prevalence of diabetes in older adults has seen a marked increase, leading to higher rates of associated complications such as diabetic foot ulcers (Wong et al., 2021). The significance of this research question is twofold; it addresses a critical health problem and explores innovative and potentially more effective treatment options. As healthcare evolves, it becomes imperative to examine how such advanced methods compare to standard practices to enhance patient outcomes.

Importance of the Research Question

This topic is essential as diabetic foot ulcers often lead to severe consequences such as infections, amputations, and increased healthcare costs. According to a study by Doupis and Veves (2020), the economic burden of treating diabetic foot ulcers can be staggering. Advanced treatment options, including bioengineered skin substitutes, have shown promise in improving healing times and reducing the risk of complications. By comparing these advanced options with traditional dressings, the proposed research aims to determine best practices for managing diabetic ulcers in this at-risk population, thereby promoting evidence-based practice in wound care.

Literature Review and Current Evidence

The utilization of bioengineered skin substitutes in managing diabetic foot ulcers is gaining traction, with recent studies highlighting their efficacy. A meta-analysis by Cazzaniga et al. (2021) found that the application of bioengineered skin substitutes significantly accelerates healing compared to traditional dressings. Additionally, bioengineered products often lead to lower rates of infection and re-ulceration over time, which underscores their importance in the treatment regimen for diabetic ulcers.

Current guidelines recommend reviewing emerging therapies to establish evidence-based protocols for wound care (American Diabetes Association, 2022). The rationale behind the PICOT question stems from the urgent need to identify the most effective treatment options that can lead to better outcomes for elderly patients suffering from chronic wounds. This understanding could streamline treatment protocols and improve quality of care significantly.

Keywords: Diabetic foot ulcers, bioengineered skin substitutes, wound healing, evidence-based practice, chronic wounds.

To summarize, the PICOT format guides the fundamental aspects of the research question, breaking down the key components necessary to frame an impactful inquiry into wound care. The combination of increasingly advanced treatments against traditional methods paves the way for future studies aimed at providing a higher standard of care for vulnerable populations.

References

  • American Diabetes Association. (2022). Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 45(Supplement 1), S1-S264.
  • Cazzaniga, A., et al. (2021). The Efficacy of Bioengineered Skin Substitutes in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 15(3), 568-578.
  • Doupis, J., & Veves, A. (2020). Diabetic foot ulcers: Pathogenesis and management. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), 2755.
  • Wong, T. C., et al. (2021). The increasing prevalence of diabetes and its complications: A worldwide trend. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 106(1), e412-e420.
  • Foster, T. L., et al. (2021). Utilization of bioengineered skin substitutes in clinical practice. Advances in Wound Care, 10(3), 132-147.
  • Meyer, J. J., & Leung, M. (2020). Wound care management: Challenges and strategies. The Clinical Advisor, 23(4), 48-54.
  • U.S. Diabetes Surveillance System. (2022). Prevalence of diabetes in the U.S. Retrieved from [online source].
  • National Institutes of Health. (2021). Chronic wounds: How to improve healing in diabetic patients. Retrieved from [online source].
  • Mustoe, T. A., & Oshima, H. (2021). Advances in wound healing: The role of bioengineering. Journal of Wound Care, 30(7), 631-640.
  • International Diabetes Federation. (2021). IDF Diabetes Atlas. 10th ed. Brussels, Belgium: IDF.

Related Assignments