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.
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.
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).
Links to selected articles-
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.