Nursing research problem statement examples help students see why an unclear draft fails and how a focused revision gives a dissertation a stronger direction. The key is understanding what changes between the two versions: the population becomes clearer, the unresolved issue becomes more specific and the proposed enquiry becomes easier to justify.
This article uses worked comparisons rather than repeating a complete writing guide. Each example includes a weak draft, an improved version, an explanation and an evidence check. You can use the comparisons to diagnose your own paragraph and decide what needs revision.
All examples are hypothetical teaching illustrations. They do not report verified findings, demonstrate genuine research gaps or establish that a particular service has a problem. Before using a similar statement in an assignment, test its claims against relevant literature and authorised local evidence. Do not copy a hypothetical gap into your dissertation as an established fact.
For the broader writing process, read How to Write a Nursing Research Problem Statement.
How to judge the examples before adapting them
A useful revision should do more than sound academic. It should make the reasoning visible. Ask whether you can identify who the proposed study concerns, what remains uncertain and why a nursing enquiry would help address that uncertainty.
Then check the relationship between the statement and the method. A study exploring experience needs a different kind of problem from one measuring an association. Similarly, a literature review examines an evidence base, whereas an improvement project may address a documented process gap within a service.
Use this comparison as a quick reading tool:
| Check | Weak draft | Improved draft |
| Population | Refers broadly to patients or nurses | Identifies the relevant group |
| Central issue | Lists a general concern | Defines one unresolved issue |
| Evidence | Makes unsupported assertions | Identifies claims requiring verification |
| Nursing relevance | Says the topic is important | Connects the enquiry to a nursing role |
| Scope | Promises several unrelated outcomes | Keeps the proposed investigation manageable |
| Language | Assumes causes or solutions | Leaves the answer open to investigation |
These checks also explain why adding more words does not necessarily improve a draft. A shorter, carefully supported paragraph can provide a clearer justification than a long introduction covering every aspect of a clinical condition.
Example 1: Medication understanding after discharge
Weak draft
Patients do not take their medicines properly because nurses do not explain them well. This research will prove that better education improves adherence.
Improved version
For a proposed study of adults discharged following changes to prescribed medicines, the research problem concerns how patients understand and use nurse-provided medication information at home. If the preliminary literature review identifies unresolved questions about patients’ experiences of that information, an enquiry could examine the communication difficulties they describe and their implications for discharge support.
Why the revision works
The weak version blames nurses, treats all patients as one group and assumes the study will prove a solution. The revision identifies a population and a specific experience. It also separates understanding medication information from demonstrating medication adherence.
The proposed enquiry could explore patients’ accounts without claiming that communication alone determines their behaviour. Access, beliefs, side effects and other factors may need consideration depending on the evidence and study boundaries.
Evidence check: Establish what existing research already explains about discharge communication. Verify the remaining uncertainty before presenting it as a gap. Do not describe a particular ward’s education as inadequate without authorised evidence.
Example 2: Pressure injury prevention
Weak draft
Pressure injuries are a major problem everywhere. Nurses need more training, and this dissertation will explain all the causes and solutions.
Improved version
A proposed review could investigate barriers to implementing pressure injury prevention among nurses caring for adults with restricted mobility in acute inpatient settings. If the initial search reveals inconsistent or fragmented findings about implementation barriers, the problem statement could justify bringing those findings together to clarify the conditions that influence delivery of preventive care.
Why the revision works
The original draft assumes training is the answer before examining the problem. It also promises to cover every cause and solution, creating an unrealistic scope.
The revision focuses on implementation barriers in a defined context. It makes the reason for a review conditional on the search findings rather than inventing a gap. Moreover, it allows the evidence to show whether the relevant barriers involve knowledge, resources, organisation or other conditions.
Evidence check: Look for existing reviews on the same population, setting and implementation question. If a recent review already answers it, explain the additional contribution or revise the scope. A different title alone does not create a new research problem.
Example 3: Newly qualified nurses and burnout
Weak draft
Nurses are burnt out because hospitals are understaffed. This study will show how staffing causes burnout and poor patient care.
Improved version
For a proposed cross-sectional study involving newly qualified nurses in acute-care settings, the problem could concern whether perceived staffing adequacy is associated with reported burnout. The statement would need to establish the relevance of this relationship from existing evidence and identify a defensible reason for examining it within the proposed population and context.
Why the revision works
The revision distinguishes an association from a causal explanation. It also avoids adding patient-care outcomes that the proposed study may not measure.
The population is more precise, and the two central concepts can inform later measurement decisions. However, the problem statement should not become a list of questionnaires or statistical tests. Those details belong in the methods once the research logic is established.
Evidence check: Define staffing adequacy and burnout consistently. Confirm whether the planned measures capture perceptions, staffing records or another construct. Then ensure that the wording of the problem, question and analysis refers to the same concepts.
Example 4: Family carers and dementia discharge planning
Weak draft
Dementia affects families badly, and carers are ignored by hospitals. More research is needed to improve everything.
Improved version
A proposed qualitative enquiry could explore how family carers of older adults with dementia experience involvement in hospital discharge planning. If the literature search identifies unanswered questions about communication or participation within the chosen context, the problem statement could explain why understanding carers’ accounts would inform nursing approaches to discharge preparation.
Why the revision works
The weak draft makes an unsupported judgement about hospitals and gives no clear research direction. The revision selects one care process and a defined group whose experiences could be explored.
It also identifies the potential nursing relevance without promising that the study will transform every aspect of dementia care. A qualitative enquiry may offer insight into experience, but its problem statement should not promise a population-wide estimate of how frequently carers are excluded.
Evidence check: Review studies of carer participation and relevant discharge guidance. Check whether the apparent gap concerns setting, experience, implementation or something else. Keep the patient’s preferences and confidentiality relevant to the proposed enquiry.
Example 5: Mental health follow-up after discharge
Weak draft
Mental health patients miss appointments because they are unmotivated. Nurses should use reminders to solve this problem.
Improved version
A proposed study could investigate how adults discharged from inpatient mental health care describe barriers to attending their first community follow-up appointment. If an initial evidence review supports a remaining uncertainty about these barriers in the selected service context, the enquiry could inform nursing understanding of the transition between inpatient and community care.
Why the revision works
The original statement assigns a reason to patients without evidence and selects an intervention before understanding the difficulty. The revised statement allows participants to describe barriers rather than having an explanation imposed on them.
It also narrows the timing to the first follow-up appointment. That boundary makes the enquiry clearer than a study covering all appointments, all diagnoses and every stage of community treatment.
Evidence check: Do not assume missed appointments are frequent in the proposed service. Establish any local pattern through permitted information, and distinguish attendance records from explanations for non-attendance. Neither automatically provides the other.
Example 6: Nursing students and simulation feedback
Weak draft
Simulation is the best way to teach nursing, but students do not learn enough. This study will prove that simulation improves confidence and competence.
Improved version
For a proposed nursing education study, the research problem could concern how undergraduate students interpret and apply feedback received during simulation debriefing. Where the preliminary review identifies an unresolved issue about using feedback in subsequent learning, the statement could justify examining students’ experiences of that process within a defined programme stage.
Why the revision works
The revision focuses on the use of feedback rather than trying to evaluate all simulation teaching. It also avoids treating confidence and competence as interchangeable outcomes.
By selecting a defined stage of the programme, the student can explain whose experiences are relevant. However, convenience alone should not be presented as evidence that this group represents a knowledge gap.
Evidence check: Examine research on debriefing, feedback and student learning. Clarify whether the proposed study concerns perceptions, application of feedback or measured performance. Use that distinction consistently when drafting the aim and research question.
Example 7: Community nursing and digital access
Weak draft
Older people cannot use technology. Digital nursing appointments are therefore unsuitable and should be stopped.
Improved version
A proposed enquiry could examine how older adults receiving community nursing care experience accessing digital consultations. If existing evidence leaves relevant questions unresolved within the selected context, the problem statement could focus on the support patients describe needing to access and participate in these consultations.
Why the revision works
The original draft stereotypes a population and announces a service decision before investigation. The revised version allows for varied experiences and focuses on access and participation.
This scope may be more manageable than attempting to evaluate every digital platform or all outcomes of remote care. It also offers a clear connection to nursing communication and patient support without assuming that everyone encounters the same barrier.
Evidence check: Decide which consultation format the study concerns. Telephone, video and portal-based communication should not be grouped automatically. Check whether the proposed recruitment method would exclude the people whose access difficulties the study aims to understand.
Example 8: Evidence synthesis on nurse-led interventions
Weak draft
There are many studies about diabetes education, so I will summarise them and show that nurse-led education works.
Improved version
A proposed evidence review could examine the effectiveness of a defined nurse-led self-management education approach for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care. If the preliminary search identifies uncertainty arising from differences in intervention delivery or study findings, the problem statement could justify a focused synthesis of eligible evidence addressing a specified outcome.
Why the revision works
Having many studies is not, by itself, a justification for another review. The improved version explains what uncertainty a synthesis might address and requires the student to define the intervention and outcome.
It also leaves the answer open. A review should be able to report limited, mixed or unfavourable evidence if that is what the included studies support.
Evidence check: Search for recent systematic reviews before claiming a synthesis is needed. Confirm that the proposed question is answerable from available studies. Do not claim conflicting findings unless you can identify and explain the relevant differences.
Example 9: A local quality improvement problem
Weak draft
Nurses forget pain assessments. My research will introduce a form and reduce patients’ pain.
Improved version
If an authorised baseline audit identifies inconsistent documentation of pain reassessment after an intervention on a defined ward, a quality improvement problem statement could describe that documented process gap. It could then justify testing an agreed change and measuring reassessment documentation during an approved project period.
Why the revision works
The revised statement requires baseline evidence instead of blaming staff. It also separates documentation of reassessment from the patient’s pain outcome.
A change might improve recorded completion without demonstrating improved pain control. Therefore, the problem statement and project aim should reflect the measures the project can actually collect.
Evidence check: Confirm the university’s project classification and the applicable governance route. Verify the audit definition, denominator and relevant standard. Do not turn this hypothetical example into a claim about a real ward or describe improvement work as research automatically.
Example 10: A problem statement covering too many issues
Weak draft
This dissertation investigates staffing, burnout, leadership, medication errors, patient satisfaction, infection prevention and nurses’ intention to leave hospitals.
Improved version
A proposed study could focus on how newly qualified nurses experience supervisory support during their transition into acute hospital practice. Subject to a supporting evidence review, the problem statement could explain the unresolved aspect of that experience and its relevance to nursing support during transition.
Why the revision works
The original draft reads like a collection of dissertation topics. Each issue could require different evidence, measures and methods. The revision chooses one central enquiry.
This does not mean the surrounding workplace context disappears. It means other issues enter the study only where they help explain the selected experience, rather than becoming separate promises the dissertation must fulfil.
Evidence check: Identify what is already known about transition and supervisory support. If the proposed focus repeats an established answer, refine the enquiry based on evidence rather than adding more outcomes to make it appear original.
How to improve your own draft using these comparisons
Start by underlining every claim in your paragraph. Mark statements about frequency, causes, service quality and gaps in knowledge. Then ask what evidence supports each one.
Next, circle the population, setting and central issue. If the paragraph identifies several unrelated problems, choose the one that your proposed method can address. Remove promises to prove an intervention works unless the research design and evidence justify that wording.
Finally, write the proposed aim beside the statement. The population and main concepts should remain recognisable. For help with the next stage, see How to Formulate a Nursing Research Question.
Use placeholders during drafting when necessary, such as “[insert verified local audit result]”. Replace them before submission. A transparent placeholder is preferable to inventing a percentage or attaching a citation that does not support the claim.
Need feedback on your nursing problem statement?
Bring your draft, assignment brief and relevant preliminary sources together before seeking feedback. This makes it easier to assess whether the issue is focused, the claims are supported and the proposed method fits the enquiry.
Our nursing dissertation support can help you review clarity, evidence use and alignment so that you can revise your own work with a clear understanding of the changes.
Frequently asked questions
Can I copy one of these examples into my dissertation?
Use the examples to understand structure and reasoning. Develop your own statement from your assignment requirements and verified evidence. The hypothetical examples do not establish genuine gaps or local findings.
Does a longer problem statement receive a better mark?
Length alone does not establish quality. Follow your brief and prioritise a clear problem, relevant evidence, justified significance and manageable scope. Extra background can obscure the enquiry if it does not contribute to the argument.
Where should citations go?
Place citations beside the claims they support. Evidence about prevalence should support the prevalence claim; evidence about an intervention should support the relevant intervention claim. One citation at the end of a paragraph may not substantiate every assertion in it.
Can a problem statement include a proposed intervention?
Yes, when intervention uncertainty is central to the enquiry. Explain why investigating that intervention is justified, and avoid announcing that it will succeed. For a local improvement project, first establish the documented practice gap.
What if I cannot find a research gap?
Review your search strategy, terminology and proposed boundaries. Existing evidence may answer the original question, or it may reveal a more precise uncertainty. Discuss the direction with your supervisor rather than claiming a gap that the search does not support.
Conclusion
The improvement in these nursing research problem statement examples comes from clearer reasoning. Stronger drafts define a focused enquiry, respect what the proposed method can establish and identify claims that need evidence. Apply those principles to your own paragraph, verify the problem and gap, and keep the aim and question aligned with the final statement.
