DQ 1 : Explain why research articles that fail to meet these criteria cannot be used to provide evidence for the DPI Project.

A primary research article reports a study its own authors conducted: it has a methods section describing what was done to whom, a results section with data generated by that study, and it is not a summary of other people's work. That definition does the exclusion work the prompt is asking about. A literature review, a systematic review, a clinical practice guideline, a textbook chapter, an editorial and a professional organisation's position paper are all useful and none of them is primary research. Why can an article that fails the criteria not support a DPI project? Because the project has to rest on evidence you can appraise directly, and a secondary source hands you somebody else's appraisal along with their inclusion decisions, their weighting and their date of search. When your committee asks how strong the evidence is, they are asking about the studies, not about the review.

Then do the search task properly, because it is half the prompt and it is graded on specificity. Post two real links, and for each give the two justifications separately. It is primary because it reports its own methods, sample and results — say the sample size and the design, which proves you opened it. It supports your practice problem because the population, the intervention and the outcome line up with your PICOT — say where they line up and, more usefully, where they do not, since a study in an adult ICU is not straightforwardly evidence for a paediatric unit. Note recency too, and be careful with age: a five-year rule is common in DNP programmes and a landmark trial older than that may still be the best evidence there is. Say what you would do about that tension rather than quietly citing an old paper.