Value of Each Type of Study in This Problem
In the articleElective cesarean delivery: Does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding, Zanardo, et al. (2010) aimed to evaluate breastfeeding rates from delivery to six months after delivery in infants born by cesarean section and infants born vaginally. The researcher used quantitative research method in the study. Quantitative study method was appropriate for the study since it helped the researcher to compare breastfeeding rate between mothers who have delivered through the elective caesarian section, emergency, caesarian section and virginal delivery. The quantitative data collected helps to show that there is low breastfeeding rate in mothers who have given birth through caesarian delivery than those who give birth through virginal deliver. From the statistical and correlation analysis, the researcher was able to conclude that caesarian have a negative impact on breastfeeding rate (Zanardo, et al., 2010).
The article by Wu, Hu, McCoy, and Efird (2014), the researcher used qualitative study method to assess the impact of breastfeeding interventions on primiparous mother’s breastfeeding self-efficacy in China. Qualitative study method was the most appropriate for the study since it helped in the understanding of why there is low breastfeeding rate in among primiparous mothers. It also helped to understand why nursing intervention increased the rate of breastfeeding self-efficacy and breastfeeding duration in the first 8 weeks postpartum (Wu, Hu, McCoy, & Efird, 2014),
Limitations of Each Type of Study in Each of the Types of Studies
In the research to evaluate effects of caesarian on breastfeeding rates, there were various limitations experienced by the researcher. Among the major limitations of the study was meeting ethical requirements. It was difficult to obtain consent from the participant to conduct the study. It was also difficult to maintain the privacy of the participant and confidentiality of the data gathered. Another the major limitation is a large number of research participants, which made it difficult to carry out follow-up interview. The study targeted 2,137 mothers who delivered at the department of pediatrics clinic at University of Pedua School of Medicine. A total of 1567 mothers participated in the study and, therefore, it was difficult collecting the data. There was also a limitation of low response rate. Out of 1567 participants, 597 were excluded from the study. There was also a limitation in the analysis of data due to the large volume of data collected. The quantitative study usually involves a large amount of data hence making analysis difficult ((Zanardo, et al., 2010).
In the study to assess the impact of breastfeeding interventions on mother’s breastfeeding self-efficacy, the researcher also faced various limitations. One of the limitations of the study limited time to collect the data. The data was conducted within three months, and this data was not enough to make a good conclusion. The other limitation was difficulties in meeting the ethical requirements. There were also limitations of limited resources. The study required the researcher to include the new mothers in an intervention program that gave them standardized care after delivery for eight weeks. Setting up the intervention program was costly for the researcher.
How the two Types of Studies Can Fit Together to Address the Problem
Both quantitative and qualitative studies can be used together in both studies to address the problem. The advantage of using mixed research method is to increase the accuracy of the data collected. In the study to evaluate effects of caesarian on breastfeeding rates both qualitative and quantitative study, the method can be used concurrently to increase the effectiveness of the study. The researcher can use qualitative data to formulate the hypothesis and quantitative data to test it. In the other study on how intervention affects the rate of breastfeeding self-efficacy among first time mothers, mixed research method is also applicable. It will help to determine how intervention has increased the rate of breastfeeding and give an explanation of why the rate has increased.
The article by Zanardo, et al. (2010) describe a quantitative study that was conducted evaluate effects of caesarian on breastfeeding rates. The study evaluated breastfeeding rates among mothers who delivered through elective caesarian, emergency caesarian and virginal delivery for 6 months. The study found out that breastfeeding rate was higher in virginal delivery than in caesarian delivery. The study concluded that elective caesarian have a negative effect on breastfeeding rate (Wu, et al., 2014). On the other hand, the article by Wu, Hu, McCoy, and Efird describes a study that was conducted to evaluate the impact of self-efficacy interventions on breastfeeding effects amid primiparous mothers. The study used experiments to collect data. Seventy-four first time mothers were selected to participate in the study. Participants were assigned to an intervention group, and they were evaluated for eight weeks. The result showed that mothers who were involved in the intervention groups increased the breastfeed rate. There the study concluded that intervention had a significant impact in breastfeeding self-efficacy (Zanardo, et al., 2010).
Wu, D. S., Hu, J., McCoy, T. P., & Efird, J. T. (2014). The effects of breastfeeding self‐efficacy intervention on short‐term breastfeeding outcomes among primiparous mothers in Wuhan, China. Journal of advanced nursing, 70(8), 1867-1879.
Zanardo, V., Svegliado, G., Cavallin, F., Giustardi, A., Cosmi, E., Litta, P., & Trevisanuto, D. (2010). Elective cesarean delivery: Does it have a negative effect on breastfeeding?. Birth, 37(4), 275-279.