This formal account report aims to analyse the two research papers on basis of comparing strength and limitations for qualitative and quantitative approach. These papers are based on suicide research screening carried out in America which identified suicide risk for psychiatric outpatients (Finch, J 1986). Included will be a literature review to enable the argument upon the approach used of qualitative and quantitative research papers and whether the researchers could have completed these studies using a different method. The qualitative and quantitative research papers were produced by the same writer; (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). Using the 6 month pilot screening period. Both papers had similar outcomes in their abstract and conclusion. They showed that type of research met the aim required for the purpose; therefore both papers are valid and reliable, arguably the study could show subject bias due to the same researchers carrying out two different methods for the same study. The subject for the key word is the public mental health system, risk screening suicide prevention by: (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). Qualitative:The qualitative paper shows that a screening method was used to collect data, based on an incident reporting system, to monitor patients and establish if there is an increase in attempting suicide to a complete suicide. The focus was based on dynamic risk factors such as “Change in mood and thoughts or recent stressors based of family history, suicidal childhood emotional, physical and sexual abuse” (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). Part of this method was to send an invitation email to collect data through a secure intranet system. Some ethical issues were identified as; the assessment of the site to whether it was going to cause issue, location was not a problem as this was the aim of the researcher to target this particular area, the risk development of screening and duration of the pilot period was also considered. This was considered as a low risk as information was collected anonymously, the effectiveness of staff showing that patients are low risk in suicidal behaviours in chosen geographical areas (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). The ethical barrier was overcome through the assessment and also consent was granted by mental health authorities prior to starting the screening. (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). Quantitative:Quantitative paper shows that 153 clinicians were provided with a list of randomly selected patients for a routine of a 6 month pilot period. The paper also shows that 719 patients went through screening routine for suicidal risk. Out of 719 patients a figure was obtained, in percentages showing the mixture of different ethnic backgrounds as follows:• 56% female • 44% male • 78% White• 17% Black • 5% Asian • 18% Other Each clinician had to screen 5 of their clients monthly, for a 6 month period. This shows that the researcher was more interested in facts and figures above all else. (Lang, M. Uttaro, T et al, 2009). UK research:In the United Kingdom many professionals believe that numbers of the official statistics are never accurate (Samaritan, 2017). This does not apply to the United Kingdom alone, but also in other countries. For many different reasons the under reporting of suicide is prevalent especially in ethnic and minority groups because of misclassification. The explanation for this is due to cultural and religious beliefs, and how reports are presented to the coroners. This can cause associated stigma for families and can be additionally attached to cultural or religious taboo. Therefore when carrying out a quantitative research, considerations should be made to finding an appropriate approach to include people of varying cultures and religious beliefs as such mixed methods can improve data. (Leo 2002; 2009).Results: The end results of both papers show the positive outcome though there were many challenges, such as ethical issues and limitations. This shows that some clinicians declined to be involved in the research itself. Clinicians response was positive in theory but in practice there was concern for triggering more negative responses in patients and reluctant to get involved (Neuman W L, 2000). A number of people and patients stated this is a good thing to do to minimise the risk of suicide. Others did not feel strongly towards the questionnaire either way, but some people did feel it may trigger the risk of suicide. Both qualitative and quantitative show that the results are low risk. Everitt, B and Hay, D (1992).To evaluate the qualitative and quantitative papers there is no wrong or right way of carrying out the research depending on the target, geographical area, location and the subject (Mcdowell, I. and Maclean, L. (1998). For a wider topic such as suicide it may suggest using a different research method such as a mixed method. This is because both qualitative and quantitative would join together from both perspectives using triangulation for a positive outcome, aiming for the bigger picture (Cassell, C and Symon, G. (1994).Literature Review:Research which has been undertaken with humans has a certain level of complexity involved, which is unique with such studies due to ethical issues, beliefs and bias (Mason, J, 1994). Carrying out the screening of suicide as a subject, is already anticipated to be difficult to engage the public because of ethical issues such as social, environment political matters and also legal. Rocha S (2004). Both qualitative and quantitative looked into analysing ethical issues which could have potentially involved those participating, both methodically considered ethical issues and addressed them. (Stanley, L (Ed) (1990).