| Course | IBC 793 Applied Project |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | PICOT paper |
| Length | About 395 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Behavioral Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IBC 793 Module 3
From Problem to Question: A PICOT for Adolescent Depression Screen Follow-Up
Student Name
Doctor of Behavioral Health, Arizona State University
IBC 793: Applied Project
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From Problem to Question: A PICOT for Adolescent Depression Screen Follow-Up
Introduction
A PICOT question gives an applied project a precise target. It names who is affected, what will change, what it will be compared with, what will be measured and over what period (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023). Below, I build that question for the project introduced in my SBAR.
First Draft and Revision
My first draft read: "Does integrated care improve depression in adolescents?" It was too broad to guide a project. "Integrated care" did not name an intervention, "improve depression" could not be measured within six months in a small clinic and there was no comparison. The revised question is:
In adolescents ages 12 to 17 with a PHQ-9 score of 11 or more at a well visit in an integrated pediatric primary care clinic (P), does a same-day warm handoff with registry-based care coordination (I), compared with usual referral practice (C), increase the proportion with documented behavioral health follow-up within 30 days (O) over six months of implementation (T)?
The Elements
| Element | Definition | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adolescents 12 to 17 with a PHQ-9 of 11 or more at a well visit | The validated adolescent cut point (Richardson et al., 2010) |
| Intervention | Same-day warm handoff plus registry tracking and outreach within seven days | Targets the steps where follow-up is lost |
| Comparison | Usual practice: verbal referral and a list of resources | The clinic's current baseline of 38% follow-up |
| Outcome | Percentage with documented follow-up within 30 days | Measurable from the record within the project period |
| Time | Six months of implementation | Long enough for monthly measurement cycles |
Alignment With the Evidence
The outcome is a process measure rather than a symptom change, and that choice is deliberate. Collaborative care improved remission among adolescents in primary care (Richardson et al., 2014), but such benefits depend on adolescents entering care. Follow-up is the first necessary step and can be tracked monthly. Evidence on warm handoffs is mixed: in one integrated care study, English-speaking Latino patients were less likely to attend a first visit after a warm handoff than after a standard referral (Horevitz et al., 2015). That finding keeps the comparison honest and argues for measuring results by language group.
Conclusion
The revised PICOT question is narrow, measurable and grounded in evidence. It defines the project's aim and will shape the population, evidence, outcomes and measurement papers that follow.
References
Horevitz, E., Organista, K. C., & Areán, P. A. (2015). Depression treatment uptake in integrated primary care: How a "warm handoff" and other factors affect decision making by Latinos. Psychiatric Services, 66(8), 824-830. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400085
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Richardson, L. P., Ludman, E., McCauley, E., Lindenbaum, J., Larison, C., Zhou, C., Clarke, G., Brent, D., & Katon, W. (2014). Collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 312(8), 809-816. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9259
Richardson, L. P., McCauley, E., Grossman, D. C., McCarty, C. A., Richards, J., Russo, J. E., Rockhill, C., & Katon, W. (2010). Evaluation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item for detecting major depression among adolescents. Pediatrics, 126(6), 1117-1123. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0852
IBC 793 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
The 20-point PICOT Assignment in Module 3 converts your problem into a clinical question. Spell out each of the five PICOT parts, and explain why each element fits your setting and the evidence. A course learning outcome asks you to synthesize current, high-quality scholarly evidence to build a PICOT question aligned with evidence-based practice frameworks, so cite the sources that justify your choices. The question will be expanded in later assignments, including the population paper in Module 4, the current status and root cause paper in Module 8 and the outcomes paper in Module 9, so precision now saves revision later. Expect your chair to ask for revisions; most strong questions go through two or three drafts.
Inside the IBC 793 Module 3 example
The paper opens by explaining what a PICOT question does, then shows a weak first draft and explains its flaws before presenting the revised question. A table defines each element and gives a rationale, with the population cut point tied to a validation study. The alignment section explains why a process outcome was chosen, links it to trial evidence on treatment and uses a study with a negative finding about warm handoffs to justify measuring results by language. The conclusion connects the question to the papers that follow. Margin notes explain the value of showing a revision. Reading the final question aloud, a reviewer can hear all five elements in one sentence.
Reading the IBC 793 Module 3 grading rubric
Faculty scoring the PICOT assignment look for a question in which every element is specific, the outcome is measurable within the project's time frame and the choices are supported by evidence. Questions lose points when the population is vague, when the intervention is a broad label, when no comparison is stated, when the outcome cannot realistically be measured or when the time frame is missing. Papers that cite only general sources, or that ignore evidence against the chosen intervention, are also weaker. A clear rationale for each element shows the evidence synthesis the course outcome describes. Showing how the question changed from draft to final version demonstrates the reasoning reviewers want to see. Citing a source for each element shows real synthesis.
IBC 793 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write a rough question first, then test each element. Ask whether you could count the outcome from records in your setting. Name the comparison as your current practice if no other group exists. Set a time frame that fits the course and your clinic. Find one source to justify each element. Look for evidence that challenges your intervention as well as evidence that supports it. If your question keeps growing, the desk can help you trim it. Read the final version aloud to check that it is one sentence. Compare your question with two published PICOT examples from your field to check its scope.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IBC 793 and Doctor of Behavioral Health sample papers
- IBC 793 Module 2: SBAR Assignment: Closing the Loop on Positive Adolescent Depression Screens
- IBC 793 Module 4: PICOT Population Paper: Adolescents With Positive Depression Screens in a Pediatric Clinic
- IBC 793 Module 5: Table Technique: An Evidence Table for the Project's Intervention
- IBC 793 Module 6: Intervention Steps and Timeline: Planning Six Months of Implementation
- IBC 793 Module 7: Evidenced Based Intervention Paper: Warm Handoffs With Registry-Based Follow-Up
- IBC 793 Module 8: PICOT Current Status and Root Cause Analysis Paper: Why Follow-Up Fails
- IBC 793 Module 9: PICOT Identified Outcomes Paper: Outcome, Process and Balancing Measures
- IBC 793 Module 10: Measurement Tool Paper: The PHQ-9 for Adolescents and the Project Registry
- IBC 793 Module 11: Proposed Budget: The Costs of Closing the Loop
- IBC 603 Module 5: Case Presentation Paper: Brief Interventions for Depression, Insomnia and Diabetes in Primary Care
IBC 793 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IBC 793 Module 3 sample paper?
The complete PICOT paper, including the rejected first draft, is here.
What does PICOT stand for?
Population, intervention, comparison, outcome and time.
Can a PICOT outcome be a process measure?
Yes, when it is a necessary step toward better outcomes and can be measured in the project period.
What PHQ-9 cut point is used for adolescents?
A score of 11 or more was optimal in a validation study.
Are warm handoffs always effective?
No; one study found English-speaking Latino patients were less likely to attend after a warm handoff.