Is the use of soap and water or alcohol-based-rubs more effective in preventing nosocomial infections?

APA, Reference, ans citation (3 paragraph) The type of research design for this question would be quantitative as it is using numerical objective data that deduces the effects of either the use of soap and water versus an alcohol-based-rub; utilizing causality in which it gives a cause and effect (Grave, Grove, & Sutherland, 2017, pp. 192-194).  “Quantitative research may be interventional or nonintervention…. Interventional designs test the effect of an intentional action, called an intervention, on a measured result” (Grave, Grove, & Sutherland, 2017, p. 192). Therefore, this theory would be interventional as it explores specifically the effects of using soap/water against the use of an alcohol-based-rub. This design was chosen as it specifically meets the criteria to be classified as quantitative methodology utilizing interventional design.  In a specific clinical trial by Clinicaltrials.gov it identifies the design as interventional regarding the investigation of efficacy of water/soap and alcohol-based-rub for surgical hand preparation (2012). For patients of 70 years and older, how effective is the use of the influenza vaccine at preventing flu as compared to patients who have not received the vaccine? The research design would be quantitative and interventional as this theoretical question uses statistical data that numerically defines the impact of the flu vaccine on the prevention of developing the flu of elderly persons. Rational for choosing this design is that it encompasses the criteria for a quantitative design as it approaches the problem in “black and white” and gives statistical data to prove or disprove the impact of the flu vaccine on the elderly population in regards to the prevention of the flu.  Within the study findings by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within a study that addressed all ages and further delineated those aged greater than 65 years. The findings of the study concluded for all participants of the study by the CDC (2018) as follows, “Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 – odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results]); odds ratios were estimated using logistic regression. Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level” (table 2). What is the difference in attitudes of male and female college students toward condoms? Research design in relation to the attitudes towards condoms for female and male college students would be qualitative design as it allows for open ended responses that can lead to further theory development. Rational for choosing this design is that this theoretical question seeks to garner further information and understanding into the college studies prior experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and their personal preferences.  The question is open-ended allowing for the exploration of the various attitudes regarding the usage of condoms from the female and male perspective. Strengths and Weaknesses of Design Quantitative Design:  Strengths to the quantitative design are that findings can be generalized to the public, samples participants can be selected to represent the population studied, provides clear documentation, allows for replication of the study, and offers the ability to control the effects of extraneous variables that may affect the interpretations of causality.  Weakness may include difficulty obtaining data, errors in self-report via questionnaires, method of research is inflexible, data that is reduced to numerical value can result in a loss of information, untested variables can account for discrepancies in findings, and erroneous or skewed findings (InterAction, n.d.a). Qualitative Design:  Strengths of the qualitative design include the flexibility/evolution of the theory, holistic view of the theoretical question, greater number of participants allows for greater understanding in view of a complex question, and narrative reports are better understood than statistical data.  Weaknesses involve the lack of clarity may be frustrating, does not allow for generalizations, lack of consensus in evidence, interpretation is too subjective, and questionable validity (InterAction, n.d.b). References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018).  Interim estimates of 2017–18 seasonal Influenza vaccine effectiveness — United States, February 2018.  Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6706a2.htm?s_cid=mm6706a2_w Clinicaltrials.gov. (2012). Study of the efficacy of plain soap and water versus Alcohol-based rubs for surgical hand preparation.  Retrieved from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00987402?sect=X5016 Gray, J., Grove, S., & Sutherland, S. (2017).  Burns and Grove’s: The practice of nursing research.  St. Louis, MO: Elsevier. InterAction. (n.d.a). Annex 1: Strengths and weakness of quantitative evaluation designs. Retrieved from https://www.interaction.org/resources/training/annex-1-strengths-and-weaknesses-quant-evaluation-approaches InterAction. (n.d.b).  Annex 2: Strengths and weakness of qualitative evaluation designs.  Retrieved from https://www.interaction.org/resources/training/annex-2-strengths-and-weaknesses-qualitative-evaluation-designs South University. (2018).  Research design.  Retrieved from https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/le/content/23546/viewContent/551430/View