Research Questions with PICO: A Universal Mnemonic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Abstraction I: The Correlational PICO Scheme
3. Abstraction II: The Universal PICO Scheme
- (a)
- First, every scientific undertaking needs to specify a research object. The observer must clearly delineate a phenomenon and approach it with a certain sense of puzzle (In contrast, the outright absence of any unit of observation would not count as research, but rather as a submersion into a noisy chaos lacking perceivable signals).
- (b)
- Second, the research project needs a methodical approach as nourished by a theory. There should be an idea as to how to proceed towards the research object in a sequence of practical or conceptual steps (In contrast, if there was a focus on a unit of observation, but no theoretical or methodical interest, then one could interpret it as a mere sensuous or cognitive awareness, but not as research).
- (c)
- Third, the research must be guided by a hypothesis. At the most fundamental level, this hypothesis is at least an implicit, minimal one that assumes that the chosen method or theory will indeed lead to knowledge generation about the research object, for otherwise the research would not be undertaken (In contrast, approaching a unit of observation with a theory or method, but without the minimum hypothetical assumption that the application of this theory or method would lead to knowledge generation might pose a playful, Dadaistic, or disoriented speculation, but not research).
- (d)
- Finally, the scholarly endeavour must aim at generating new knowledge (In contrast, if that aim is deficient—that is, if there is a focus on a unit of observation with a specified theory/method that is assumed to be apt for generating an explanation about that unit of observation but doing so without pursuing the goal of knowledge generation, then one may count it as a preliminary step of data collection, but not as full-fledged research).
- (a)
- The ‘problem’, or P, poses the research object or the unit that is being observed by the research;
- (b)
- The ‘intervention’, or I, denotes the application of a method or a theory or the sequence of conceptual or practical steps with which knowledge generation about the research object can be achieved;
- (c)
- The ‘control’, or C, are alternative theories or methods, in the absence of which it is the null hypothesis;
- (d)
- The ‘outcome’, or O, is the aim of knowledge generation, often the goal of attaining a plausible explanation for an underlying research puzzle (albeit it could also be the collection of a large-scale dataset for further analytical use, or the construction of a taxonomy, etc.).
4. Examples: Unifying Heterogeneous Research Questions
5. Discussion
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Richardson, W.S.; Wilson, M.C.; Nishikawa, J.; Hayward, R.S.A. The Well-Built Clinical Question: A Key to Evidence-Based Decisions. ACP J. Club 1995, 123, A12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rojon, C.; Saunders, M.N.K. Formulating a Convincing Rationale for a Research Study. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 2012, 5, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mayo, N.E.; Asano, M.; Barbic, S.P. When Is a Research Question Not a Research Question? J. Rehabil. Med. 2013, 45, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goldschmidt, G.; Matthews, B. Formulating Design Research Questions: A Framework. Des. Stud. 2022, 78, 101062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milner, K.A.; Cosme, S. The PICO Game: An Innovative Strategy for Teaching Step 1 in Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2017, 14, 514–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welty, E.; Hofstetter, S.; Schulte, S.J. Time to Re-Evaluate How We Teach Information Literacy: Applying PICO in Library Instruction. Coll. Res. Libr. News 2017, 73, 476–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schardt, C.; Adams, M.B.; Owens, T.; Keitz, S.; Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO Framework to Improve Searching PubMed for Clinical Questions. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2007, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schlosser, R.W.; Koul, R.; Costello, J. Asking Well-Built Questions for Evidence-Based Practice in Augmentative and Alternative Communication. J. Commun. Disord. 2007, 40, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luijendijk, H.J. How to Create PICO Questions about Diagnostic Tests. BMJ Evid.-Based Med. 2021, 26, 155–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speckman, R.A.; Friedly, J.L. Asking Structured, Answerable Clinical Questions Using the Population, Intervention/Comparator, Outcome (PICO) Framework. PM&R 2019, 11, 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Lin, J.; Demner-Fushman, D. Evaluation of PICO as a Knowledge Representation for Clinical Questions. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2006, 2006, 359–363. [Google Scholar]
- Schiavenato, M.; Chu, F. PICO: What It Is and What It Is Not. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2021, 56, 103194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sisson, H. How Helpful Are Mnemonics in the Development of a Research Question? Nurse Res. 2017, 25, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooke, A.; Smith, D.; Booth, A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mantzoukas, S. Facilitating Research Students in Formulating Qualitative Research Questions. Nurse Educ. Today 2008, 28, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cummings, J.A.; Sanders, L. Introduction to Psychology; University of Saskatchewan Open Press: Saskatoon, SK, Cannada, 2019; ISBN 978-0-88880-637-6. [Google Scholar]
- Galtung, J. Summit Meetings and International Relations. J. Peace Res. 1964, 1, 36–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holland, P.W. Statistics and Causal Inference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1986, 81, 945–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luhmann, N. Social Systems; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Pacher, A.; Heck, T.; Schoch, K. Open Editors: A Dataset of Scholarly Journals’ Editorial Board Positions. SocArXiV 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chankseliani, M.; Lovakov, A.; Pislyakov, V. A Big Picture: Bibliometric Study of Academic Publications from Post-Soviet Countries. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 8701–8730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacsó, P. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications: The Software and Content Features of a New Open Access Bibliometric Service. Online Inf. Rev. 2012, 36, 604–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chetty, R.; Hendren, N.; Katz, L.F. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 855–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, W.; Qian, D.; Zhang, S.; Li, S.; Inganäs, O.; Gao, F.; Hou, J. Fullerene-Free Polymer Solar Cells with over 11% Efficiency and Excellent Thermal Stability. Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 4734–4739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 770–778. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, W.; Ni, Z.; Hu, Y.; Liang, W.; Ou, C.; He, J.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.; Lei, C.; Hui, D.S.C.; et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1708–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tandoc, E.C.; Lim, Z.W.; Ling, R. Defining “Fake News”. Digit. J. 2018, 6, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, P.; Yang, X.-L.; Wang, X.-G.; Hu, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; Si, H.-R.; Zhu, Y.; Li, B.; Huang, C.-L.; et al. A Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin. Nature 2020, 579, 270–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration; Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abernathy, M.R.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 061102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrah, D. A Logic of Questions and Answers. Philos. Sci. 2015, 28, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luhmann, N. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., Germany, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Ball, R. Scholarly Communication in Transition: The Use of Question Marks in the Titles of Scientific Articles in Medicine, Life Sciences and Physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics 2009, 79, 667–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cook, J.M.; Plourde, D. Do Scholars Follow Betteridge’s Law? The Use of Questions in Journal Article Titles. Scientometrics 2016, 108, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt Eriksen, M.; Faber Frandsen, T. The Impact of Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) as a Search Strategy Tool on Literature Search Quality: A Systematic Review. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kloda, L.A.; Boruff, J.T.; Cavalcante, A.S. A Comparison of Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) to a New, Alternative Clinical Question Framework for Search Skills, Search Results, and Self-Efficacy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2020, 108, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thabane, L.; Thomas, T.; Ye, C.; Paul, J. Posing the Research Question: Not so Simple. Can. J. Anesth. Can. Anesth. 2008, 56, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Davis, M.S. That’s Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philos. Soc. Sci. 1971, 1, 309–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, A.; Blackman, D. Can Research Methods Ever Be Interesting? Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2003, 4, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrugia, P.; Petrisor, B.A.; Farrokhyar, F.; Bhandari, M. Research Questions, Hypotheses and Objectives. Can. J. Surg. 2010, 53, 278–281. [Google Scholar]
- Sandberg, J.; Alvesson, M. Ways of Constructing Research Questions: Gap-Spotting or Problematization? Organization 2011, 18, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isidori, A.M.; Pozza, C.; Gianfrilli, D.; Isidori, A. Medical Treatment to Improve Sperm Quality. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2006, 12, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, E.V.; Whang, T. Do Sanctions Spell Disaster? Economic Sanctions, Political Institutions, and Technological Safety. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 2020, 26, 767–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunton, C.; Hasler, J. Opening the Black Box of International Aid: Understanding Delivery Actors and Democratization. Int. Polit. 2021, 58, 792–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G.; Viveros-Delgado, J. Software Survey: ScientoPy, a Scientometric Tool for Topics Trend Analysis in Scientific Publications. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1165–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Z. PubMed and beyond: A Survey of Web Tools for Searching Biomedical Literature. Database 2011, 2011, baq036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brown, D. A Review of the PubMed PICO Tool: Using Evidence-Based Practice in Health Education. Health Promot. Pract. 2020, 21, 496–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nishikawa-Pacher, A. A Typology of Research Discovery Tools. J. Inf. Sci. Forthcoming. [CrossRef]
- Jensen, K.A. Seven Steps to the Perfect PICO Search. EBSCO Health Notes 2018. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20220621150523/https://www.ebsco.com/blogs/health-notes/seven-steps-perfect-pico-search (accessed on 18 June 2022).
- Devezer, B.; Navarro, D.J.; Vandekerckhove, J.; Ozge Buzbas, E. The Case for Formal Methodology in Scientific Reform. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 200805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Components of PICO | Components of Correlational Study Designs | Example I | Example II |
---|---|---|---|
Problem | Units of observation | Children (after exercising sports) | Superpower diplomacy |
Intervention | Independent variable | Ginger tea | Conflicts in world politics |
Control | Control variable (or null hypothesis) | Black tea | (Null hypothesis) |
Outcome | Dependent variable | Degree of tiredness | Importance of neutral countries |
Components of PICO | Components of All Research Designs |
---|---|
Problem | Research object |
Intervention | Application of a theory or method |
Comparison | Alternative theories or methods (or, in their absence, the null hypothesis) |
Outcome | Knowledge generation |
Category | Journal | Paper |
---|---|---|
Business, Economics, and Management | American Economic Review | [23] |
Chemical and Material Sciences | Advanced Materials | [24] |
Engineering and Computer Science | IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition | [25] |
Health and Medical Sciences | New England Journal of Medicine | [26] |
Humanities, Literature, and Arts | Digital Journalism | [27] |
Life Sciences and Earth Sciences | Nature | [28] |
Physics and Mathematics | Physical Review Letters | [29] |
Social Sciences | Journal of Business Ethics | [30] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nishikawa-Pacher, A. Research Questions with PICO: A Universal Mnemonic. Publications 2022, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030021
Nishikawa-Pacher A. Research Questions with PICO: A Universal Mnemonic. Publications. 2022; 10(3):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030021
Chicago/Turabian StyleNishikawa-Pacher, Andreas. 2022. "Research Questions with PICO: A Universal Mnemonic" Publications 10, no. 3: 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030021