NUR 318 Nursing Research and Evidence Translation: Evidence-Based Practice Discussion Board Assignment

Course context

NUR 318 Nursing Research and Evidence Translation at Arizona State University prepares students to read, interpret, and apply research in clinical decision making and quality improvement. The following discussion board assignment reflects how BSN students practise evidence-based thinking in short, focused writing tasks that link research findings to patient care decisions.

Assessment overview

Students participate in a structured evidence-based practice (EBP) discussion that connects a clinical question to research evidence and to patient preferences and values. The activity emphasises clear written communication, appropriate use of sources, and respectful engagement with peers in an online learning environment.

• Assessment type: Discussion board initial post and peer responses.
• Course level: NUR 318 or similar ASU BSN research and EBP course.
• Length: Initial post 300–400 words; at least two peer responses of 150–200 words each.
• Weight: 5–10% of total course grade (adjust to match local syllabus).

Discussion task: Formulating and Applying a PICOT Question

Purpose

Students show that they can frame a focused clinical question in PICOT format, locate and summarise research evidence, and consider how patient preferences and clinical expertise have influenced the use of that evidence in practice.

Instructions for the initial post (300–400 words)

1. Select a clinical issue
   • Choose a clinical problem from your current or recent practice, such as pain management, fall prevention, medication safety, pressure injury prevention, discharge teaching, or patient education needs.
   • Make sure the problem is narrow enough to frame clearly as a PICOT question.
2. Write a PICOT question
   • State your PICOT question explicitly and label each element:
     • P (population)
     • I (intervention)
     • C (comparison)
     • O (outcome)
     • T (time, if relevant)
3. Identify and summarise evidence
   • Locate at least one recent peer-reviewed research article (2018–2025) that addresses your PICOT question.
   • Provide a concise summary of the study’s purpose, design, main findings, and relevance to your clinical issue, using your own words.
4. Connect evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences
   • Explain how the evidence you found might influence nursing practice related to your PICOT question.
   • Discuss how patient preferences, values, or cultural considerations could affect decisions about the intervention, and how clinical judgement might help to balance these factors with the research findings.
5. APA citation
   • Cite the article in current APA style at the end of your post and include in-text citation(s) where appropriate.

Instructions for peer responses (two replies, 150–200 words each)

1. Respond to at least two classmates whose PICOT questions address different clinical issues from your own.
2. Comment on the clarity and focus of each PICOT question and suggest minor refinements if needed.
3. Offer at least one additional idea for a source of evidence, outcome measure, or way to incorporate patient preferences for each peer’s topic.
4. Use a respectful, collegial tone and support at least one point across your replies with a scholarly or professional source (for example, an EBP article, guideline, or textbook), cited in APA style.
5. Post both replies by the end of the discussion week, according to the course calendar.

Rubric: PICOT and Evidence-Based Discussion

Performance levels

The rubric includes four levels of performance: Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, and Limited. Points for each level may be tailored to the grading scale used in the NUR 318 syllabus.

Criterion 1: PICOT formulation and relevance

• Exemplary: Presents a clearly structured PICOT question that identifies all elements accurately and aligns closely with a realistic clinical issue. Demonstrates a strong link between the question and nursing practice.
• Proficient: States a complete PICOT question with minor issues in wording or focus. Connection to clinical practice is apparent but could be more specific.
• Developing: Includes some PICOT elements but omits or confuses others. Clinical relevance is present but not clearly articulated.
• Limited: Provides a vague or incomplete question that does not follow PICOT structure and shows limited relevance to nursing care.

Criterion 2: Use and interpretation of evidence

• Exemplary: Selects a recent, high-quality article that directly addresses the PICOT question and summarises the study accurately. Explains the implications of the findings for nursing practice in a clear and focused way.
• Proficient: Uses a suitable article and offers a generally accurate summary. Draws reasonable connections to practice, though some details could be clearer.
• Developing: Chooses a partially relevant or older article, or summarises the study in a limited way. Links to practice are brief or somewhat unclear.
• Limited: Provides minimal evidence or misinterprets the article. Does not explain how the findings might influence clinical practice.

Criterion 3: Integration of patient preferences and clinical expertise

• Exemplary: Clearly describes how patient preferences, values, and cultural factors may shape decisions about the intervention, and how clinical expertise can support individualised, evidence-informed care.
• Proficient: Addresses patient preferences and clinical judgement with reasonable clarity, although some aspects remain general.
• Developing: Mentions patient preferences or clinical expertise briefly but does not integrate them meaningfully with the evidence.
• Limited: Offers little or no discussion of patient preferences or clinical expertise in relation to the evidence.

Criterion 4: Engagement with peers

• Exemplary: Responds to at least two peers with timely, thoughtful comments that support and extend their ideas. Offers constructive feedback on PICOT clarity and suggests new angles or sources in a respectful, academically grounded way.
• Proficient: Meets reply requirements and engages positively with peers. Adds some helpful comments or questions, though depth varies.
• Developing: Replies are brief or mainly supportive, with limited new insight or feedback.
• Limited: Provides minimal or late responses that do not significantly contribute to the discussion.

Criterion 5: Writing quality and APA format

• Exemplary: Uses clear, organised academic writing with well-structured sentences and paragraphs. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are accurate. Applies APA style correctly for in-text citations and reference list.
• Proficient: Communicates clearly with occasional minor errors that do not interfere with meaning. APA format is mostly consistent.
• Developing: Shows noticeable issues with clarity, organisation, or APA style that sometimes distract the reader.
• Limited: Contains frequent errors in writing or citation that make the post hard to follow or academically weak.

Peer-reviewed references

• Melnyk, BM, Gallagher-Ford, L, Long, LE & Fineout-Overholt, E 2014, ‘The establishment of evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real-world clinical settings’, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5–15, doi:10.1111/wvn.12021.
• Hong, QN, Pluye, P, Fàbregues, S, Bartlett, G, Boardman, F, Cargo, M et al. 2018, ‘Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018: user guide’, McGill University, viewed 30 December 2025.
• LoBiondo-Wood, G & Haber, J 2022, Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, 11th edn, Elsevier, St Louis.
• Schmidt, NA & Brown, JM 2019, Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses: Appraisal and Application of Research, 4th edn, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington.
• Dang, D & Dearholt, SL 2018, Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Model and Guidelines, 3rd edn, Sigma Theta Tau International, Indianapolis.