What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clinicians often witness impressive treatment results in practice and may wish to pursue research to formally explore their anecdotal experiences. The potential to further new knowledge both within the profession and to the greater healthcare system is compelling. An obvious next step for a practitioner considering research is to connect with experienced researchers to convey their idea for a study, who may in turn ask, “What is your research question?” With limited understanding of how to respond, this interaction may result in the first and last experience these clinicians will have with the research community. It has been estimated that between 1% and 7% of the chiropractic profession in Canada is engaged in research. 1,2 Arguably, this low engagement could be the result of practitioners’ perceived importance of research and levels of research literacy and capacity. However, increasing demands for evidence-based approaches across the health system puts pressure on all clinicians to base their decisions on the best available scientific evidence. Lack of clinician representation in research has the probable effect of limiting growth and new developments for the profession. Furthermore, lack of clinician involvement in research complicates the transfer of study findings into practical settings. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research describes integrated knowledge translation as a process that involves collaboration between researchers and knowledge users at all stages of a research project.3 This necessitates involvement of clinicians to help in forming a research question, interpreting the results, and moving research findings into practice. This shared effort between clinicians and researchers increases the likelihood that research initiatives will be relevant to practice.3 Conversely, it has been reported that there is a growing communication gap between clinicians and academics in chiropractic. 4 Clinicians have important practice-related questions to ask, but many may lack the ability to map out their research strategy, specifically in communicating their question in a manner required to develop a research protocol. David L. Sackett, Officer of the Order of Canada and the founding Chair of Canada’s first Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics at McMaster University, highlights the importance of mapping one’s research strategy in exploration of the research question: “one-third of a trial’s time between the germ of your idea and its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine should be spent fighting about the research question.” (personal communication, November 30, 2011) We describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) example to highlight how clinicians may use existing literature and the PICOT format to formulate a research question on treatment efficacy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,126 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,171 | 0,104 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».