Assignment: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Review, Analysis

This assignment presents a review of two research papers, one qualitative and one quantitative, focusing on healthcare topics. The qualitative study by Carson, Loeb & Lohfeld (2006) examines in-situ pneumonia care from the perspectives of residents and family members using in-depth interviews, categorized as qualitative research. The quantitative study by Thomas & Lorenzetti (2014) assesses social interventions for influenza vaccination uptake in older populations, employing quantitative methods to analyze statistical significance. The assignment justifies the selection of each paper based on personal interest, research methods, and data analysis. Additionally, it explains the rationale for choosing BMC Geriatrics and the Cochrane Library as publication sources. The assignment includes links to the selected articles and a comprehensive list of references.

Running head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REVIEW
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Review
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REVIEW
Answer to question 1
The study by Carson, Loeb & Lohfeld (2006) is categorised as qualitative study as in-
depth interview was conducted for examining the perspective of the resident and the family
member regarding the in-situ care for pneumonia. According to Neuman (2013) a qualitative
research using interview method seeks to explore and describe the central themes or underlying
reasons of the subject being investigated. It is helpful in understanding the meaning of the
problems or viewpoints narrated by the people and generated a subjective data. The same has
been found in the paper by Carson, Loeb & Lohfeld (2006). The author tends to explore the
factual as well as meaningful data rebated to the treatment of the pneumonia in nursing home,
ideas of participants regarding care aspects and ideas of family members regarding involvement
in decision making process. Therefore, the author could conclude from the interview data and
recordings that interventions are consistent with the family member and residents
preferences.
The study by Thomas & Lorenzetti (2014) is regarded as the quantitative data as the
author aims to assess the social interventions for influenza uptake, public access, system,
provider, for increased influenza vaccination in older population in the community. This was the
continuation of previous research in 2010. According to McCusker & Gunaydin (2015)
quantitative research quantifies information that can be used to measure height and other
parameters and document as numbers. Quantitative data concerns about numeric value generated
while quantifying the problem, which can be assessed using the statistical methods. The same
has been evident from the quantitative study as the author assessed the quality of 13 RCTs on
influenza uptake data and identified the statistical significance of the trial of interventions.

2QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REVIEW
Answer to question 2
The justification for selection of the paper by Carson, Loeb & Lohfeld (2006) is the
personal interest in understanding the in-situ pneumonia care and perspective of care users. The
other rationale includes the title of the paper highlighted as “a qualitative descriptive study”. The
other reason is the personal interest in understanding data collection from interview.
The justification for selection of the paper by Thomas & Lorenzetti (2014) is the presence
of numeric data and statistical validity such as assessment of heterogeneity, reporting bias and
data synthesis based on the assessment. The rationale was to gain insights of the quantitative
research method for future use.
Answer to question 3
The rationale for choosing the BMC geriatrics is open access journal and it nature of
publishing the peer-reviewed articles in different areas of health care related to older population.
It impact factor is 3.33 (Qasem, Fenton & Friel, 2015).
The rationale for choosing the Cochrane library for the quantitative paper is the
independent evidence to help with healthcare decision-making. It is popular for systematic
reviews. Moreover, the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, which published the
article, is popular for the pre-eminent rigorous quality standard for systematic reviews (Arditi et
al., 2016).
Answer to question 4
Links to selected articles-
1. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2318-6-2

3QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REVIEW
2. http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005188.pub2/full

4QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REVIEW
References
Arditi, C., Burnand, B., & Peytremann-Bridevaux, I. (2016). Adding non-randomised studies to a
Cochrane review brings complementary information for healthcare stakeholders: an
augmented systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC health services research, 16(1),
598.
Carusone, S. C., Loeb, M., & Lohfeld, L. (2006). Pneumonia care and the nursing home: a
qualitative descriptive study of resident and family member perspectives. BMC
geriatrics, 6(1), 2.
McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed
methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537-542.
Neuman, W. L. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Pearson education.
Qasem, W., Fenton, T., & Friel, J. (2015). Age of introduction of first complementary feeding
for infants: a systematic review. BMC pediatrics, 15(1), 107.
Thomas, R. E., & Lorenzetti, D. L. (2014). Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates
of those 60 years and older in the community. The Cochrane Library.