Drive practice change.

Work both questions through the same five steps rather than writing an essay about either. Splitting PICOT is mechanical once you are careful about the C and the T. In the first question the population is children aged five to nineteen with a body mass index of thirty or above, the intervention is motivational interviewing during a regularly scheduled well-child visit, the comparison is practice as usual, the outcomes are body mass index, blood pressure, quality of life and daily physical activity, and the time is eight to ten weeks. In the second the population is adult critical care patients, the intervention is a research-based skin integrity bundle, the comparison is standard care, the outcome is the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury, and the time is again eight to ten weeks. Notice that practice as usual and standard care are real comparisons rather than absences, and describing what they consist of on the unit is part of specifying the C.

Then take the measurement and feasibility questions seriously, because they are where the assignment stops being clerical. Name real instruments rather than saying outcomes will be measured: body mass index percentile for age, a validated paediatric quality-of-life inventory, accelerometry or a physical activity questionnaire, and for the second question the Braden Scale for risk with staged pressure injury incidence per thousand patient days as the outcome. The feasibility answers then differ sharply, and saying so is the point. Pressure injury incidence moves within weeks and a critical care unit generates enough cases to see it, so eight to ten weeks is plausible. Body mass index in children does not move meaningfully in eight to ten weeks, and the interval between well-child visits means many participants would receive the intervention once. Recommend a shorter-term proximal outcome for that question instead, such as change in reported physical activity minutes, which can move inside the window.