Kimiesha Nichols
Felician University
Avsar, Kasikci, and Yagci’s article titled Hand Washing of Nursing Students: An Observational Study applies the qualitative approach to help illuminate how hand washing is intricately related to the transmission of hospital infections (Avsar et al., 2015). Ideally, this article proceeds from the assertion that hand washing is a major contributing factor to hospital infections. Accordingly, the researchers seek to investigate and determine the behaviors of students with regards to hygienic hand washing. The intention of this paper is to compare this qualitative article with a quantitative article exploring the same topic; handwashing. The quantitative article to be compared with is Rita Babeluk’sHand Hygiene – Evaluation of Three Disinfectant Hand Sanitizers in a Community Setting.
Given the nature of this comparison, it is imperative to highlight the meaning of qualitative and quantitative approaches in research. On the one hand, qualitative research is exploratory at the core. It is deployed to widen understanding on a problem by way of uncovering underlying motivations, opinions, and reasons. On the basis that this research methodology is based on opinions, motivations, and reasons, it is primarily subjective. Qualitative research aims at offering and description to a given phenomenon with the objective of widening understanding to the target audience. On the other hand, quantitative research is utilized in the quantification of a problem by generating numerical data which can then be transformed into applicable statistics. As opposed to the qualitative approach that uses inductive reasoning to synthesize data, quantitative approach engages deductive reasoning. This type of research is objective and empirical.
Basing on these conceptualizations, Avsar, Kasikci, and Yagci’s article clearly tries to increase the readers understanding on the issue of hand washing and its link with the transmission of hospital transmissions (Avsar et al., 2015). For example, this research explores and reports the reasons and motivations for hand washing in hospitals. According to these researchers, the number one reason for washing hands among the healthcare fraternity is medicine administration. Further, the reason for washing hands differ from one person to another. While some may wash their hands because they have administrated medicine, others may wash just because they have touched patients. Hence, the fact that the findings of this research are based on opinions, it is evident that the article is subjective. In other words, the findings of this research cannot be generalized as reasons and motivations of people washing their hands differ considerably from one person to another, and even from one culture, religion, academic level, or even social conditioning to another.
On the contrary, Babeluk’s article relies on numbers and statistical analysis to the basis of analysis. That is, Babeluk’s uses numerical figures and statistical analysis to test the existing theory which asserts that hand-washing has an indirect relationship with the transmission of healthcare-associated infections (Babeluk et al., 2014). In this tune, this research investigates cause and effect relationships between hand washing and HAIs transmission. According to the findings reported herein, hand disinfection is directly connected with bacteria reduction. Moreover, the results of this research can be generalized for the entire population. That is, the findings are objective and thus valid and reliable for policy formulation.
Another difference is seen in sampling. While Avsar, Kasikci and Yagci selected their subjects from the faculty of health, Babeluk chose participants who had no prior training in hand hygiene. The participants chosen to represent the population in Avsar, Kasikci and Yagci’s article perfectly fitted the research. Unfortunately, those selected in Babeluk’s article did not fit to inform the research. It is confusing to engage students who are outside the healthcare fraternity to assess a problem to do with HAIs. As such, the subjects engaged in Babeluk’s research risked the validity and reliability of the research findings.
Despite the difference though, the two research articles share a number of similarities. To begin with, the two consider hand washing as having a relationship with the transmission of HAIs. However, Avsar, Kasikci, and Yagcidevelop the theory on the one pole, and Babeluk tests the theory on the other pole. Secondly, in their results, the two articles point that hand disinfection would help reduce bacteria. Although, Babeluk’s article moves a step further in elaborating which kind of disinfection leads to a reduction in bacteria, the two articles make the same call. Still another similarity is that the two research articles deployed the sampling method in their investigation. None of these articles studied the entire population. Instead, they each selected subjects from the population, although using different inclusion and exclusion criteria. In this light, the samples of both articles were constituted by students albeit from different universities and professions.Another similarity also manifests in the methods of data collection used in both cases. The two articles did employ primary data collection methods. However, Avsar, Kasikci, and Yagci used observation method while Babeluk used questionnaires.
The components of a qualitative process include a statement of the topic of interest, purpose of the study, the research method, sampling, data collection, data analysis, findings, and finally the conclusion, implications and recommendations. Worth-noting, the purpose of the study as well as the problem statement should be derived from gaps in preceding research and existing literature. That is, qualitative research process should always remain true to the primary objective of increasing understanding of the problem at hand. Therefore, the process should focus towards exploring that which has always been left out or is yet to be examined.
I would prefer to read Avsar, Kasikci, and Yagci’s article. There are three main reasons for preferring this article over Babeluk’s article. First, the article offers such a profound background on the extent of the problem under study by highlighting several statistical reports. In the same line, these authors provide a detailed literature review which serves the purpose of not only widening my knowledge regarding hand washing and HAIs but also the gaps in preceding research.
Second, the subjects chosen in this study qualify to inform the research. The problem of handwashing in this research does not cover everybody but only the healthcare community. As such, it would be illogical to choose subjects who are not members of the healthcare fraternity. Thirdly, the participants of this research agreed to participate in the study. The very fact that participants had an informed consent considerably lowers the risk of bias. People who are forced by circumstances to participate in a research are often more likely to ask their friends or relatives to fill in their questionnaires for them. Moreover, this study deployed observational design which further reduces the risk of bias. With questionnaires, there is the risk that the interviewee may fill something totally different. Such may not be the case with observation design.
References
Avsar, G., Kasicki, M., Yagci, N. (2015). Hand Washing of Nursing Students: An Observational Study. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(3): 618-624.
Babeluk, R., Jutz, S., Mertlitz, S., Matiasek, J., Klaus, C. (2014). Hand Hygiene – Evaluation of Three Disinfectant Hand Sanitizers in a Community Setting. PLOS ONE, 9(11): e111969.
LoBionde-Wood, G., Haber, J. (2014) Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice 8th Edition.: 135-136.
