Problem Statement (PICOT)
A PICOT statement is a method for developing a concise and simple clinical research question (Sanchez-Graillet et al., 2022). It is an acronym that represents the following elements:
- P – Patient or population
- I – Intervention or issue
- C – Comparison or control
- O- Outcome
- T – Time frame
PICOT statements can help identify the key components of a research question and define the study population, intervention, comparison, and outcome measures. For example, a PICOT statement for a research study might be:
“In patients with Type 2 Diabetes (P), what is the effect of drug therapy (I) compared to cardiovascular therapy (C) on blood sugar control (O) over 1 month (T)?” This statement specifies the patient population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time frame for this assessment.
NURS FPX 6030 Assessment 2 Problem Statement (PICOT)
Health Promotion, Quality Improvement, Prevention, Education, or Management Needs
Diabetes is a long-term disease that alters how the body uses sugar. If left untreated, it can result in serious health problems such as heart disease, kidney damage, nerve damage, and vision loss (Corrao et al., 2021). The World Health Organization estimates that more than 400 million adults had diabetes, and the prevalence of the disease is increasing globally (Green et al., 2021).
Proper management of diabetes is essential for reducing the risk of these complications and improving overall health. This typically includes a combination of lifestyle changes, such as a healthy diet and regular exercise, and medication. By controlling blood sugar levels, people with diabetes can significantly reduce their risk of complications and improve their quality of life (Bhat & Ansari, 2021).
In addition, managing diabetes has significant economic and social implications. The direct and indirect costs associated with the disease, including healthcare expenses and lost productivity, can be substantial (Crocker et al., 2021). By prioritizing effective diabetes management, we can reduce the overall burden of the disease on both individuals and society.
Developing a campaign to educate patients with type 2 diabetes about the importance of blood sugar control and the various treatment options available can be an effective way to address health promotion needs. This type of intervention can help to raise awareness of the benefits and potential risks of different treatment approaches, such as drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy, and provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions about their care. Educating patients about their treatment options and the importance of maintaining blood sugar control may improve their understanding of their condition and the steps they can take to manage it effectively (Bandyopadhyay, 2021). For those who have type 2 diabetes, this may ultimately result in improved health outcomes.
Analyzing data on the effectiveness of different treatment approaches for controlling blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes can be an essential aspect of quality improvement efforts. This can involve comparing outcomes for patients receiving drug therapy to those receiving cardiovascular therapy, to identify any potential areas for improvement. By identifying best practices and implementing strategies to optimize treatment, it may be possible to improve the care received by patients with type 2 diabetes. Quality improvement efforts in healthcare can help to identify and address any gaps or inefficiencies in care, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for patients. Quality improvement can be approached in various ways, including through data analysis, process improvement techniques, and the implementation of evidence-based practices (Djonor et al., 2021).
Identifying risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes and developing interventions to reduce the risk of the condition is an important aspect of prevention. This can involve promoting healthy lifestyle behaviors, such as regular physical activity and a healthy diet, to prevent the development of diabetes (Catapan et al., 2021). By identifying and addressing risk factors, it may be possible to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes and improve the overall health of the population. Being overweight or obesity, having a family history of the disease, and a lack of physical activity are some of the prevalent risk factors for type 2 diabetes. By addressing these and other risk factors through prevention efforts, it may be possible to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes on both individuals and society.
Developing educational materials or programs for healthcare providers or patients with type 2 diabetes can be an important aspect of addressing the PICOT question. This can involve providing information about the different treatment options available, such as drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy, and the importance of maintaining good blood sugar control. Educational materials or programs can be developed in various formats, such as written guides, videos, or interactive workshops, and can be targeted to healthcare providers or patients with type 2 diabetes, depending on the needs of the audience. By providing education about the management of type 2 diabetes, it may be possible to improve knowledge and understanding among healthcare providers and patients, which can ultimately lead to better health outcomes for patients with the condition. It is important to consider the needs and preferences of the intended audience when developing educational materials or programs, as this can help to ensure that the materials are effective and well-received (Catapan et al., 2021).
Management can help to improve the care received by patients with type 2 diabetes and ultimately enhance their health outcomes. Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition that requires ongoing management to prevent the development of complications such as cardiovascular disease, kidney damage, nerve damage, and eye damage. By optimizing treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes, it may be possible to control blood sugar levels better and reduce the risk of these complications. This can ultimately improve the quality of life for patients with type 2 diabetes and reduce the overall burden on individuals and society. Additionally, by identifying best practices for managing type 2 diabetes, it may be possible to improve efficiency in the healthcare system and reduce the costs associated with the condition (Djonor et al., 2021).
Assumptions of the Discussion
The PICOT question described above involves comparing drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy for controlling blood sugar levels in patients with Type 2 Diabetes. It is assumed that patients with type 2 diabetes need treatment to manage their condition and maintain good blood sugar control and that there are various treatment options available, including drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy. It is also assumed that there may be knowledge gaps or misunderstandings among patients or healthcare providers about the different treatment options available and the importance of maintaining good blood sugar control. There may be opportunities to improve the effectiveness of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes through the development of new interventions or the optimization of existing approaches.
Risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes may be addressed through prevention efforts, and educational resources or programs may be necessary to improve knowledge and understanding about the management of type 2 diabetes among patients and healthcare providers. Finally, guidelines or protocols may be needed to assist healthcare providers in effectively managing patients with type 2 diabetes (Green et al., 2021).
Quality Improvement Method
A randomized controlled trial is considered the most reliable method for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, as it enables a direct comparison between the interventions being tested and controls for potential confounding factors (Wei et al., 2021). This type of study design could be implemented to compare the effectiveness of drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy for controlling sugar levels in patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
The primary outcome measure for this study would be blood glucose levels, as measured by regular blood glucose tests. Secondary outcome measures could include hemoglobin A1c levels, a measure of long-term blood sugar control, and other markers of diabetes control such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels. By evaluating the impact of these interventions on these outcomes, the study has the potential to identify the most effective treatment strategy for managing blood glucose levels in patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
However, conducting a randomized controlled trial in this population and setting may present some challenges. Recruitment of a sufficient sample size of patients with Type 2 Diabetes may be difficult, as participation in research studies is often voluntary and patients may have competing commitments or concerns about the potential risks and benefits of participating. In addition, ensuring consistency in the administration of the interventions across all study participants may be challenging, as both drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy may require ongoing monitoring and adjustment. Finally, coordinating the study across multiple healthcare settings, such as primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals, may present logistical challenges (Baldassari et al., 2022).
Interventions for Quality Improvement
One therapy that can be used as an intervention is Pharmacotherapy. Pharmacotherapy involves the use of medications to lower blood glucose levels and improves diabetes control. Some commonly used medications for this purpose include metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones (Klonoff et al., 2020). While pharmacotherapy can be relatively simple to implement and may have a rapid impact on blood glucose levels, it is not without limitations. For example, some medications used to lower blood glucose levels can have side effects, such as gastrointestinal distress or an increased risk of hypoglycemia (Concepción Zavaleta et al., 2021). Additionally, long-term use of these medications may be associated with an increased risk of developing certain health conditions, such as kidney damage or cardiovascular disease. Finally, pharmacotherapy may not be effective for all patients, and some may require additional interventions such as lifestyle modification or insulin therapy to achieve optimal diabetes control (Concepción Zavaleta et al., 2021).
Cardiovascular therapy, such as exercise and diet modification, involves making changes to a person’s lifestyle to improve their overall cardiovascular health and blood sugar control. For example, increasing physical activity and eating a healthy diet can help lower blood glucose levels and improve insulin sensitivity. In a systematic review of lifestyle interventions for Type 2 Diabetes, it was found that these interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels, with a mean reduction of 0.9% (Dahm et al., 2021). However, it is important to note that cardiovascular therapy can be challenging for some patients to implement, and it may take longer to see improvements in blood glucose levels compared to pharmacotherapy (Alfonso et al., 2022).
Potential Interprofessional Alternatives
One potential alternative is the use of a multidisciplinary team approach to diabetes management. This could involve a team of healthcare professionals with different areas of expertise, such as endocrinologists, primary care providers, dietitians, and exercise specialists, working together to provide comprehensive care to patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Chiodini et al., 2021). This approach has the advantage of allowing for a more holistic approach to care and may be more effective at improving diabetes control compared to a single-discipline approach. However, it may require more coordination and communication among team members, and be more resource intensive.
NURS FPX 6030 Assessment 2 Problem Statement (PICOT)
Another potential alternative is the use of a self-management program for diabetes. This could involve providing patients with education and support to help them manage their diabetes on their own, including information about healthy lifestyle habits, medication management, and blood glucose monitoring. Self-management programs have the advantage of empowering patients and may be more convenient and cost-effective than more intensive interventions. However, they may not be suitable for all patients, as they may require a certain level of motivation and self-discipline, and they may not be as effective as more intensive interventions for patients with more severe or uncontrolled diabetes (Yu et al., 2022).
Outcome Related to Health Care Policy
A potential outcome of a health policy related to the PICOT question described above could be the improvement of diabetes control among a specific population. The purpose of this intervention would be to determine the most effective intervention for improving diabetes control in patients with Type 2 Diabetes, to inform clinical practice, and improve the overall health of this population. The intended accomplishments of this intervention could include reducing the incidence of diabetes-related complications, such as cardiovascular disease and kidney damage, and improving patient quality of life. To achieve this outcome, the health policy could involve implementing a program to promote the use of evidence-based interventions for diabetes management, such as drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy. This could involve providing resources and support to healthcare providers and educating patients about treatment options. The policy could also involve implementing quality improvement initiatives to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions being implemented. The goal of this health policy would be to improve the management of diabetes in the target population and ultimately improve the health and well-being of patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Alfonso et al., 2022).
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a policy that could impact the approach to addressing the need for improved management of type 2 diabetes. The ACA expands access to healthcare coverage and aims to improve the quality of care received by patients. Under the ACA, insurance companies must cover certain preventive services related to diabetes, such as screening and education, without copays or deductibles. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which studies and implements cutting-edge payment and service delivery methods to save costs and enhance care quality, was also formed by the ACA. One example of a CMMI initiative is the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model, which aims to coordinate and manage care for patients with chronic conditions, including diabetes, through financial incentives for primary care practices that adopt new payment models and care delivery practices focused on prevention, coordination, and value-based care. These policies could improve diabetes management and reduce costs associated with the condition (Furmanchuk et al., 2021).
Criteria Used to Assess the Outcomes
To evaluate the achievement of the outcome related to improving diabetes control in patients with Type 2 Diabetes, as described in the PICOT question above, several criteria could be used. These include the change in hemoglobin A1c levels over time, the change in the number of diabetes-related complications, and patient satisfaction with the interventions being implemented. These criteria could be used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention and inform any necessary adjustments to the intervention or health policy (Corrao et al., 2021).
Timeline for the Development Plan
The PICOT question development plan, which compares drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy for lowering blood sugar levels in people with Type 2 Diabetes, could involve the following actions within a 1-month time frame:
Conduct a rapid literature review to identify existing evidence on the effectiveness of drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy for controlling blood glucose levels in patients with Type 2 Diabetes. This could involve searching electronic databases and consulting with experts in the field.
Design a pilot study to test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. This could involve recruiting a small number of patients and training healthcare providers on the intervention.
Implement the pilot study in a target population and setting. This could involve recruiting patients, training healthcare providers on the intervention, and establishing systems and processes for implementing and monitoring the intervention.
Analyze the data collected during the pilot study to assess the effectiveness of the intervention and make any necessary adjustments. Disseminate the findings of the pilot study to inform clinical practice and future research.
Areas of Uncertainty that Could Affect the Time Frame
Several areas of uncertainty or knowledge gaps could affect the time frame for the development and implementation of the intervention. For example, it may be difficult to predict how long it will take to recruit and enroll patients in the study or to identify and train healthcare providers on the intervention. Additionally, there may be unforeseen challenges or barriers that arise during the implementation phase that could affect the timeline. Finally, there may be gaps in the existing evidence base that need to be addressed through additional research before the intervention (Baldassari et al., 2022).
Relevance of Evidence
In researching the PICOT question, a variety of credible and reliable sources of evidence were used to inform the development of the study. These sources included peer-reviewed articles and journals, such as PubMed and Medline, as well as guidelines and clinical practice recommendations from reputable organizations.
The research design, sample size, and statistical analysis were carefully considered to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. The relevance of the research to the target population and setting was also evaluated, and the generalizability of the findings to other populations or settings was considered. The evidence used in this research was carefully selected and evaluated to ensure its credibility and relevance to the PICOT question. These sources were instrumental in informing the development of the study and contributed to the reliability and validity of the findings.
The studies reviewed in the above discussion highlight the importance of addressing the management of type 2 diabetes to improve health outcomes and reduce the burden of the disease on individuals and society (Alfonso et al., 2022). Effective management of diabetes typically involves a combination of lifestyle modifications, such as a healthy diet and regular exercise, and medication. By controlling blood sugar levels, people with diabetes can significantly reduce their risk of complications and improve their quality of life (Corrao et al., 2021).
The studies also highlight the potential benefits of different treatment approaches for managing blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes, including drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy (Klonoff et al., 2020). Randomized controlled trials are considered the most reliable method for evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions, and such a study could be implemented to compare the effectiveness of these approaches in controlling blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (Wei et al., 2021).
In addition to treatment approaches, the studies also emphasized the importance of prevention efforts to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, as well as the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the management of the condition (Catapan et al., 2021).
Reason for Selection
Sanchez-Graillet et al. (2022)
Discusses the importance of developing concise and simple clinical research questions using the PICOT method, which is relevant to the PICOT question being addressed in this discussion
Corrao et al. (2021)
Discusses the importance of proper diabetes management to reduce the risk of complications and improve overall health, which is relevant to the PICOT question being addressed in this discussion
Green et al. (2021)
Discusses the global prevalence of diabetes and the need to address the burden of the disease, which is relevant to the PICOT question being addressed in this discussion
Bhat & Ansari (2021)
Discusses the importance of blood sugar control in the management of diabetes and the potential benefits of different treatment approaches, which is relevant to the PICOT question being addressed in this discussion
Crocker et al. (2021)
Discusses the economic and social implications of diabetes and the need to prioritize effective management of the condition, which is relevant to the PICOT question being addressed in this discussion
Discusses the importance of educating patients about their treatment options and the importance of maintaining blood sugar control, which is relevant to the PIC
In conclusion, type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition that requires ongoing management to prevent the development of serious complications such as cardiovascular disease, kidney damage, nerve damage, and vision loss. Proper management of diabetes involves a combination of lifestyle modifications and medication, and by controlling blood sugar levels, people with diabetes can significantly reduce their risk of complications and improve their quality of life. There are various treatment approaches available for managing blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes, including drug therapy and cardiovascular therapy, and evidence suggests that both approaches may be effective in controlling blood sugar levels. To determine the most effective treatment approach, it may be necessary to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of these interventions. In addition to treatment approaches, it is also important to focus on prevention efforts to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and to educate patients and healthcare providers about the management of the condition. Quality improvement initiatives and the implementation of evidence-based practices can also help to optimize the care received by patients with type 2 diabetes.
NURS FPX 6030 Assessment 2 Problem Statement (PICOT)
Alfonso, F., de la Torre Hernández, J. M., Ibáñez, B., Sabaté, M., Pan, M., Gulati, R., Saw, J., Angiolillo, D. J., Adlam, D., & Sánchez-Madrid, F. (2022). Rationale and design of the BA-SCAD (Beta-blockers and Antiplatelet agents in patients with Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection) randomized clinical trial. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 75(6), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2021.08.003
Baldassari, I., Oliverio, A., Krogh, V., Bruno, E., Gargano, G., Cortellini, M., Casagrande, A., Di Mauro, M. G., Venturelli, E., Del Sette Cerulli, D., Manuela, B., Berrino, F., & Pasanisi, P. (2022). Recruitment in randomized clinical trials: The meme experience. PLOS ONE, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265495
Bandyopadhyay, M. (2021). Gestational diabetes mellitus: A qualitative study of lived experiences of South Asian immigrant women and perspectives of their health care providers in Melbourne, Australia. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03981-5
Bhat, S. S., & Ansari, G. A. (2021). Predictions of Diabetes and diet recommendation system for Diabetic patients using machine learning techniques. 2021 2nd International Conference for Emerging Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/incet51464.2021.9456365
Catapan, S. de C., Nair, U., Gray, L., Calvo, M., Bird, D., Janda, M., Fatehi, F., Menon, A., & Russell, A. (2021). Same goals, different challenges: A systematic review of perspectives of people with diabetes and healthcare professionals on Type 2 diabetes care. Diabetic Medicine, 38(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14625
Chiodini, I., Gaudio, A., Palermo, A., Napoli, N., Vescini, F., Falchetti, A., Merlotti, D., Eller-Vainicher, C., Carnevale, V., Scillitani, A., Pugliese, G., Rendina, D., Salcuni, A., Bertoldo, F., Gonnelli, S., Nuti, R., Toscano, V., Triggiani, V., Cenci, S., & Gennari, L. (2021). Management of bone fragility in Type 2 Diabetes: Perspective from an interdisciplinary expert panel. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 31(8), 2210–2233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2021.04.014
Concepción Zavaleta, M. J., Gonzáles Yovera, J. G., Moreno Marreros, D. M., Rafael Robles, L. del P., Palomino Taype, K. R., Soto Gálvez, K. N., Arriola Torres, L. F., Coronado Arroyo, J. C., & Concepción Urteaga, L. A. (2021). Diabetic gastroenteropathy: An underdiagnosed complication. World Journal of Diabetes, 12(6), 794–809. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v12.i6.794
Corrao, S., Pinelli, K., Vacca, M., Raspanti, M., & Argano, C. (2021). Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and COVID-19: A narrative review. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.609470
Crocker, R. M., Palmer, K. N. B., Marrero, D. G., & Tan, T.-W. (2021). Patient perspectives on the physical, psycho-social, and financial impacts of diabetic foot ulceration and amputation. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, 107960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2021.107960
Dahm, P., MacDonald, R., McKenzie, L., Jung, J. H., Greer, N., & Wilt, T. (2021). Newer minimally invasive treatment modalities to treat lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. European Urology Open Science, 26, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.02.001
Djonor, S. K., Ako-Nnubeng, I. T., Owusu, E. A., Akuffo, K. O., Nortey, P., Agyei-Manu, E., & Danso-Appiah, A. (2021). Determinants of blood glucose control among people with Type 2 Diabetes in a regional hospital in Ghana. PLOS ONE, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261455
Furmanchuk, A., Liu, M., Song, X., Waitman, L. R., Meurer, J. R., Osinski, K., Stoddard, A., Chrischilles, E., McClay, J. C., Cowell, L. G., Tachinardi, U., Embi, P. J., Mosa, A. M., Mandhadi, V., Shah, R. C., Garcia, D., Angulo, F., Patino, A., Trick, W. E., & Markossian, T. W. (2021). Effect of the Affordable Care Act on diabetes care at major health centers: Newly detected diabetes and Diabetes medication management. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002205
Green, A., Hede, S. M., Patterson, C. C., Wild, S. H., Imperatore, G., Roglic, G., & Beran, D. (2021). Type 1 Diabetes in 2017: Global estimates of the incident and prevalent cases in children and adults. Diabetologia, 64(12), 2741–2750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05571-8
Klonoff, D. C., Zhang, J. Y., Shang, T., Mehta, C., & Kerr, D. (2020). Pharmacoadherence: An opportunity for digital health to inform the third dimension of pharmacotherapy for Diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 15(1), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820973185
Sanchez-Graillet, O., Witte, C., Grimm, F., & Cimiano, P. (2022). An annotated corpus of clinical trial publications supporting schema-based relational information extraction. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-022-00271-7
Wei, Q., Xu, X., Guo, L., Li, J., & Li, L. (2021). Effect of SGLT2 Inhibitors on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.635556
Yu, X., Chau, J. P. C., Huo, L., Li, X., Wang, D., Wu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The effects of a nurse-led integrative medicine-based structured education program on self-management behaviors among individuals with newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Nursing, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00970-7