Step 0: Inquire
What is Step 0: "Spirit of Inquiry?" Step zero is having an "ongoing curiosity about the best evidence to guide clinical decision making." Wyant, T. (2018). A Spirit of Inquiry Leads to Evidence-Based Answers to Practice Questions
Step 0 is very important in developing your PICOT question. Having an ongoing curiosity about your work will generate questions and ideas about current practice and ways to improve patient outcomes.
The "Seven Steps" to EBP are available on tabs within this page. Visit each of these 7 step tabs sequentially for a systematic overview or use them independently to learn more about each step. Additional EBP resources are included on the left navigation menu as well.
Further reading:
Below are links to articles that explain the importance of developing a natural curiosity about your work and how to apply the skills to improve clinical practice based on the best evidence.
Cuzmenco, S. (2024). Strategies to Achieve Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing. Critical Care Nurse, 44(1), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2024359
O’Brien, T., Hood, A., Spalla King, T., & Brinkman, B. (2023). Nurturing a Spirit of Inquiry: Fundamentals of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 50(6), 509–511. https://doi.org/10.37526/1526-744X.2023.50.6.509
Step 1: Ask: Formulate a PICOT: Inquiry leads to question formation
Background questions: EBP initiatives often begin with background questions that are refined and adjusted throughout the literature search. These types of questions are broad and provide an overview of a topic of interest. Background question lay the foundation for more specific foreground questions and help identify best practices.
Foreground questions are focused and often compare two or more ideas or interventions. These types of questions are more detailed and often flow from background questions and literature reviews.
PICOT Question: In Elderly Adults (P), how does T'ai Chi (I) compared to no exercise (C) affect fall rates (O) within six months (T)?
Patient-Population or Problem: Question: What are the patient characteristics? Concept: Elderly at risk for falling PubMed MeSH term: Aged MeSH terms stand for Medical Subject Headings |
Related search concepts and synonyms: Seniors, Older Adults, Aged: 65+ years ( Use as additional search terms) |
Intervention or Exposure: Question: What interventions will make them well? Concept: T'ai Chi PubMed MeSH term: Tai Ji |
Related search concepts and synonyms: Exercise, Yoga, Martial Arts. (Use as additional search terms) |
Comparison or Placebo: Question: What is the intervention compared with? Concept: No Exercise or Status Quo PubMed MeSH term: Sedentary Behavior |
Related search concepts and synonyms: Sedentary lifestyle (Use as additional search terms) |
Outcome: Question: What is the intended outcome of the intervention? Concept: Reduced fall rate- Falls-prevention |
Related search concepts and synonyms: Accidental Falls, Trip, Stumble, Falling (Use as additional search terms) |
Time: Question: What is the time frame for the intervention? Concept: 6 months |
Related search concepts and synonyms: Time Factors (Use as additional search terms) |
References:
Valatka, R., Krizo, J., & Mallat, A. (2021). A Survey-Based Assessment of “Matter of Balance” Participant Fall-Related Experience. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 28(5), 304–309.
Step 2: Search: Search for the best evidence
Searching multiple databases with reliable content will yield the best results for finding EBP literature. Examples include CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane.
Use PubMed's "Clinical Queries" pre-filtered search box to find high level studies that are evidence-based.
Searching for the best literature on your PICOT begins with choosing the right type of question and matching it with an ideal study type. For example, an Intervention/Therapy PICOT is best answered by finding Randomized Controlled Trials, Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. These publications are considered some of the highest level of evidence literature or "gold standard." For more information see the "Levels of Evidence" tab.
Databases are designed to include options for limiting or refining your searches to certain publication types like the ones listed below:
Type of Question | Ideal Type of Study |
Intervention/Therapy | ► Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), Systematic Review, Meta-analysis |
Prevention | ► RCT, Cohort Study, Case Control Study |
Diagnosis | ► Prospective, blind controlled trial compared to gold standard |
Prognosis | ► Cohort study, Case Control, Case series or case report |
Etiology/Harm | ► RCT, Cohort study, case control |
Search Tip: When beginning to search for literature on your PICOT, start out broadly with a few concepts and then begin to narrow it down.
Searching for "Higher Level" studies like RCTs, Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses is made easier by using filtered search options in databases like PubMed.
Step 3: Appraise: Critical Appraisal of Evidence
"Nurses at all educational levels report that they lack knowledge to critically appraise research studies and the skills to effectively implement evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical settings" (Moore, 2013).
Below are recommended tools to critically appraise different types of articles:
Carrie Price, Townson University's Albert S. Cook Library
This brief video discusses four tools that can be used to critically appraise research evidence. Being able to answer the right questions will help you become more confident at finding high-quality literature as well as identifying bias and flaws.
Step 4: Integrate
“Sharing the results from a successful EBP project, a QI initiative, or original research increases the likelihood for replication or duplication in other practice settings” (Milner, 2016).
Effective communication is key to disseminating new knowledge to others. Some ways to share EBP initiatives with others include:
Round Table Discussions
Podium/Oral Presentations
Poster Presentations
Webinars/Podcasts/Online Networks
Journal Publishing/Journal Clubs
Informal Conversations with others
Hospital Rounds
“Half of research evidence never reaches the clinical setting, and the other half takes 20 years to translate into clinical practice" (Boehm, 2020).