How helpful are mnemonics in the development of a research question?
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

How helpful are mnemonics in the development of a research question?

Helen Sisson Lecturer, University of Hull, Hull, England

Background The formulation of a research question is a vital first step in the research process and the significance of this is well reported in the literature; a well-structured question increases the outcome of useable findings. To aid the development of a research question, a number of frameworks in the form of mnemonics have been identified. It is suggested that the application of these mnemonics may result in confusion rather than provide helpful guidance.

Aim To present an overview of some of the mnemonically identified frameworks and consider how they may support the development of a research question.

Discussion The use of mnemonics can help to develop questions for empirical research or to identify published evidence. The oldest and most commonly cited mnemonic is PICO, which is most often discussed in association with quantitative approaches. Other mnemonics share similarities with PICO, although may be more aligned to particular research approaches. Along with a flexible approach to their use, the characteristics required to establish an effective research question may support the application of published mnemonics.

Conclusion The availability of frameworks in the form of mnemonics can help in the development of a research question, but their use and limitations must be fully understood. A flexible approach to their use is vital and this may also be helped by considering the characteristics of an effective research question.

Implications for practice When developing research questions, nurse researchers and nurses with a role in academic supervision should use the available mnemonics as a guide rather than rigidly adhering to them. They should also be aware of the characteristics of a good research question and advise students accordingly.

Nurse Researcher. 25, 3, 42-45. doi: 10.7748/nr.2017.e1540


Peer review

This article has been subject to double-blind review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact

For author guidelines, go to

Received: 03 November 2016

Accepted: 20 April 2017

Want to read more?

Already have access? Log in


3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more