Four types: single holistic, single embedded, multiple holistic, multiple embedded
The post-positive paradigm postulates there is one reality that can be objectively described and understood by “bracketing” oneself from the research to remove prejudice or bias. 27 Yin focuses on general explanation and prediction, emphasizing the formulation of propositions, akin to hypothesis testing. This approach is best suited for structured and objective data collection 9 , 11 and is often used for mixed-method studies.
Constructivism assumes that the phenomenon of interest is constructed and influenced by local contexts, including the interaction between researchers, individuals, and their environment. 27 It acknowledges multiple interpretations of reality 24 constructed within the context by the researcher and participants which are unlikely to be replicated, should either change. 5 , 20 Stake and Merriam’s constructivist approaches emphasize a story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. 7 This stance values researcher reflexivity and transparency, 28 acknowledging how researchers’ experiences and disciplinary lenses influence their assumptions and beliefs about the nature of the phenomenon and development of the findings.
A key tenet of case study methodology often underemphasized in literature is the importance of defining the case and phenomenon. Researches should clearly describe the case with sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand the setting and context and determine applicability. Trying to answer a question that is too broad often leads to an unclear definition of the case and phenomenon. 20 Cases should therefore be bound by time and place to ensure rigor and feasibility. 6
Yin 22 defines a case as “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,” (p13) which may contain a single unit of analysis, including individuals, programs, corporations, or clinics 29 (holistic), or be broken into sub-units of analysis, such as projects, meetings, roles, or locations within the case (embedded). 30 Merriam 24 and Stake 5 similarly define a case as a single unit studied within a bounded system. Stake 5 , 23 suggests bounding cases by contexts and experiences where the phenomenon of interest can be a program, process, or experience. However, the line between the case and phenomenon can become muddy. For guidance, Stake 5 , 23 describes the case as the noun or entity and the phenomenon of interest as the verb, functioning, or activity of the case.
Yin’s approach to a case study is rooted in a formal proposition or theory which guides the case and is used to test the outcome. 1 Stake 5 advocates for a flexible design and explicitly states that data collection and analysis may commence at any point. Merriam’s 24 approach blends both Yin and Stake’s, allowing the necessary flexibility in data collection and analysis to meet the needs.
Yin 30 proposed three types of case study approaches—descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory. Each can be designed around single or multiple cases, creating six basic case study methodologies. Descriptive studies provide a rich description of the phenomenon within its context, which can be helpful in developing theories. To test a theory or determine cause and effect relationships, researchers can use an explanatory design. An exploratory model is typically used in the pilot-test phase to develop propositions (eg, Sibbald et al. 31 used this approach to explore interprofessional network complexity). Despite having distinct characteristics, the boundaries between case study types are flexible with significant overlap. 30 Each has five key components: (1) research question; (2) proposition; (3) unit of analysis; (4) logical linking that connects the theory with proposition; and (5) criteria for analyzing findings.
Contrary to Yin, Stake 5 believes the research process cannot be planned in its entirety because research evolves as it is performed. Consequently, researchers can adjust the design of their methods even after data collection has begun. Stake 5 classifies case studies into three categories: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective/multiple. Intrinsic case studies focus on gaining a better understanding of the case. These are often undertaken when the researcher has an interest in a specific case. Instrumental case study is used when the case itself is not of the utmost importance, and the issue or phenomenon (ie, the research question) being explored becomes the focus instead (eg, Paciocco 32 used an instrumental case study to evaluate the implementation of a chronic disease management program). 5 Collective designs are rooted in an instrumental case study and include multiple cases to gain an in-depth understanding of the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon across diverse contexts. 5 , 23 In collective designs, studying similarities and differences between the cases allows the phenomenon to be understood more intimately (for examples of this in the field, see van Zelm et al. 33 and Burrows et al. 34 In addition, Sibbald et al. 35 present an example where a cross-case analysis method is used to compare instrumental cases).
Merriam’s approach is flexible (similar to Stake) as well as stepwise and linear (similar to Yin). She advocates for conducting a literature review before designing the study to better understand the theoretical underpinnings. 24 , 25 Unlike Stake or Yin, Merriam proposes a step-by-step guide for researchers to design a case study. These steps include performing a literature review, creating a theoretical framework, identifying the problem, creating and refining the research question(s), and selecting a study sample that fits the question(s). 24 , 25 , 36
Using multiple data collection methods is a key characteristic of all case study methodology; it enhances the credibility of the findings by allowing different facets and views of the phenomenon to be explored. 23 Common methods include interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. 5 , 37 By seeking patterns within and across data sources, a thick description of the case can be generated to support a greater understanding and interpretation of the whole phenomenon. 5 , 17 , 20 , 23 This technique is called triangulation and is used to explore cases with greater accuracy. 5 Although Stake 5 maintains case study is most often used in qualitative research, Yin 17 supports a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate data. This deliberate convergence of data sources (or mixed methods) allows researchers to find greater depth in their analysis and develop converging lines of inquiry. For example, case studies evaluating interventions commonly use qualitative interviews to describe the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators paired with a quantitative survey of comparative outcomes and effectiveness. 33 , 38 , 39
Yin 30 describes analysis as dependent on the chosen approach, whether it be (1) deductive and rely on theoretical propositions; (2) inductive and analyze data from the “ground up”; (3) organized to create a case description; or (4) used to examine plausible rival explanations. According to Yin’s 40 approach to descriptive case studies, carefully considering theory development is an important part of study design. “Theory” refers to field-relevant propositions, commonly agreed upon assumptions, or fully developed theories. 40 Stake 5 advocates for using the researcher’s intuition and impression to guide analysis through a categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Merriam 24 uses six different methods to guide the “process of making meaning” (p178) : (1) ethnographic analysis; (2) narrative analysis; (3) phenomenological analysis; (4) constant comparative method; (5) content analysis; and (6) analytic induction.
Drawing upon a theoretical or conceptual framework to inform analysis improves the quality of case study and avoids the risk of description without meaning. 18 Using Stake’s 5 approach, researchers rely on protocols and previous knowledge to help make sense of new ideas; theory can guide the research and assist researchers in understanding how new information fits into existing knowledge.
Columbia University has recently demonstrated how case studies can help train future health leaders. 41 Case studies encompass components of systems thinking—considering connections and interactions between components of a system, alongside the implications and consequences of those relationships—to equip health leaders with tools to tackle global health issues. 41 Greenwood 42 evaluated Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the healthcare system in British Columbia and used a case study to challenge and educate health leaders across the country to enhance culturally sensitive health service environments.
An important but often omitted step in case study research is an assessment of quality and rigour. We recommend using a framework or set of criteria to assess the rigour of the qualitative research. Suitable resources include Caelli et al., 43 Houghten et al., 44 Ravenek and Rudman, 45 and Tracy. 46
Although “pragmatic” case studies (ie, utilizing practical and applicable methods) have existed within psychotherapy for some time, 47 , 48 only recently has the applicability of pragmatism as an underlying paradigmatic perspective been considered in HSR. 49 This is marked by uptake of pragmatism in Randomized Control Trials, recognizing that “gold standard” testing conditions do not reflect the reality of clinical settings 50 , 51 nor do a handful of epistemologically guided methodologies suit every research inquiry.
Pragmatism positions the research question as the basis for methodological choices, rather than a theory or epistemology, allowing researchers to pursue the most practical approach to understanding a problem or discovering an actionable solution. 52 Mixed methods are commonly used to create a deeper understanding of the case through converging qualitative and quantitative data. 52 Pragmatic case study is suited to HSR because its flexibility throughout the research process accommodates complexity, ever-changing systems, and disruptions to research plans. 49 , 50 Much like case study, pragmatism has been criticized for its flexibility and use when other approaches are seemingly ill-fit. 53 , 54 Similarly, authors argue that this results from a lack of investigation and proper application rather than a reflection of validity, legitimizing the need for more exploration and conversation among researchers and practitioners. 55
Although occasionally misunderstood as a less rigourous research methodology, 8 case study research is highly flexible and allows for contextual nuances. 5 , 6 Its use is valuable when the researcher desires a thorough understanding of a phenomenon or case bound by context. 11 If needed, multiple similar cases can be studied simultaneously, or one case within another. 16 , 17 There are currently three main approaches to case study, 5 , 17 , 24 each with their own definitions of a case, ontological and epistemological paradigms, methodologies, and data collection and analysis procedures. 37
Individuals’ experiences within health systems are influenced heavily by contextual factors, participant experience, and intricate relationships between different organizations and actors. 55 Case study research is well suited for HSR because it can track and examine these complex relationships and systems as they evolve over time. 6 , 7 It is important that researchers and health leaders using this methodology understand its key tenets and how to conduct a proper case study. Although there are many examples of case study in action, they are often under-reported and, when reported, not rigorously conducted. 9 Thus, decision-makers and health leaders should use these examples with caution. The proper reporting of case studies is necessary to bolster their credibility in HSR literature and provide readers sufficient information to critically assess the methodology. We also call on health leaders who frequently use case studies 56 – 58 to report them in the primary research literature.
The purpose of this article is to advocate for the continued and advanced use of case study in HSR and to provide literature-based guidance for decision-makers, policy-makers, and health leaders on how to engage in, read, and interpret findings from case study research. As health systems progress and evolve, the application of case study research will continue to increase as researchers and health leaders aim to capture the inherent complexities, nuances, and contextual factors. 7
There are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.
Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project.
Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or mode | Seeks to identify most significant items in the field | No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution | Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological | Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory |
| Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints | No formal quality assessment | May be graphical and tabular | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research |
| Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity |
| Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies | Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies | Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists | Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies | Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other |
| Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics | May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not) | May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not) | Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies | May employ selective or purposive sampling | Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion | Qualitative, narrative synthesis | Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models |
| Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Typically narrative and tabular | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature |
| Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress | No formal quality assessment | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review |
| Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives | Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature | No formal quality assessment | Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment | Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research |
| Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research |
| Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations |
| Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology |
| Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research |
Discover the world's research
BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 11 , Article number: 100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article
792k Accesses
1084 Citations
40 Altmetric
Metrics details
The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.
Peer Review reports
The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.
The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.
This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].
A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.
Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.
These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].
According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.
Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].
Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.
Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].
For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.
The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.
For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.
In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.
The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.
It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.
In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.
In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].
Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.
In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.
Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.
The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].
Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.
When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].
The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.
Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].
The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.
Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4
Google Scholar
Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.
Article Google Scholar
Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]
Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-
Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.
Stake RE: The art of case study research. 1995, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.
George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.
Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.
Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.
Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications
Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.
Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.
Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage
Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.
Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2
Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.
Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2
Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar
Book Google Scholar
Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press
Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.
Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.
Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub
Download references
We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Authors and affiliations.
Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery
Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh
School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .
Competing interests.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
Download citation
Received : 29 November 2010
Accepted : 27 June 2011
Published : 27 June 2011
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1471-2288
Two cases about Hertz claimed top spots in 2021's Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies
Two cases on the uses of debt and equity at Hertz claimed top spots in the CRDT’s (Case Research and Development Team) 2021 top 40 review of cases.
Hertz (A) took the top spot. The case details the financial structure of the rental car company through the end of 2019. Hertz (B), which ranked third in CRDT’s list, describes the company’s struggles during the early part of the COVID pandemic and its eventual need to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The success of the Hertz cases was unprecedented for the top 40 list. Usually, cases take a number of years to gain popularity, but the Hertz cases claimed top spots in their first year of release. Hertz (A) also became the first ‘cooked’ case to top the annual review, as all of the other winners had been web-based ‘raw’ cases.
Besides introducing students to the complicated financing required to maintain an enormous fleet of cars, the Hertz cases also expanded the diversity of case protagonists. Kathyrn Marinello was the CEO of Hertz during this period and the CFO, Jamere Jackson is black.
Sandwiched between the two Hertz cases, Coffee 2016, a perennial best seller, finished second. “Glory, Glory, Man United!” a case about an English football team’s IPO made a surprise move to number four. Cases on search fund boards, the future of malls, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth fund, Prodigy Finance, the Mayo Clinic, and Cadbury rounded out the top ten.
Other year-end data for 2021 showed:
CRDT compiled the Top 40 list by combining data from its case store, Google Analytics, and other measures of interest and adoption.
All of this year’s Top 40 cases are available for purchase from the Yale Management Media store .
And the Top 40 cases studies of 2021 are:
1. Hertz Global Holdings (A): Uses of Debt and Equity
2. Coffee 2016
3. Hertz Global Holdings (B): Uses of Debt and Equity 2020
4. Glory, Glory Man United!
5. Search Fund Company Boards: How CEOs Can Build Boards to Help Them Thrive
6. The Future of Malls: Was Decline Inevitable?
7. Strategy for Norway's Pension Fund Global
8. Prodigy Finance
9. Design at Mayo
10. Cadbury
11. City Hospital Emergency Room
13. Volkswagen
14. Marina Bay Sands
15. Shake Shack IPO
16. Mastercard
17. Netflix
18. Ant Financial
19. AXA: Creating the New CR Metrics
20. IBM Corporate Service Corps
21. Business Leadership in South Africa's 1994 Reforms
22. Alternative Meat Industry
23. Children's Premier
24. Khalil Tawil and Umi (A)
25. Palm Oil 2016
26. Teach For All: Designing a Global Network
27. What's Next? Search Fund Entrepreneurs Reflect on Life After Exit
28. Searching for a Search Fund Structure: A Student Takes a Tour of Various Options
30. Project Sammaan
31. Commonfund ESG
32. Polaroid
33. Connecticut Green Bank 2018: After the Raid
34. FieldFresh Foods
35. The Alibaba Group
36. 360 State Street: Real Options
37. Herman Miller
38. AgBiome
39. Nathan Cummings Foundation
40. Toyota 2010
We have Got Top MBAs From American Universities As Well As CFAs On Our Panel. Every Case Study We Independently And Individually Solve From Scratch. Hire Us For An A Grade!
Place the order here and upload case study soft copy, questions and
Case Study Solution The case studies are stories which demonstrates
Hi, What started as a part-time meagre income from sites like Freelancer.com
What is online case study.
Descriptive case based research method:, exploratory case based research method:, types of case based research methods:.
Pitfalls for qualitative research methods:.
Available sources to collect quantitative data:.
How to solve case study.
Significance of solving case study, the steps of solving case study, read and examine the case thoroughly:, define the central issue:, gathering information:, take a brief introduction:, understand the organizational goal:, research various aspects of the organization related to case study:, identify the other related constraints:, identify all the relevant alternatives:, evaluating alternatives:, select the best alternative:, develop an implementation plan:, case study assignment help.
Identifying the problem, identifying the solution, developing a thesis statement, writing the analysis, business case study writing service, harvard case solutions, ivey case solutions, darden case solutions, our case study writing service, case study help writing service, harvard case solutions, ivy case solutions, darden case solutions, discussion of some types of business case studies with examples.
Business case studies, ethics case studies, human resources cases, operations management case studies.
Economics case solutions, management case studies, harvard case studies analysis solutions.
Example #1: sony’s gaijin ceo reorganizing the company, example #2: downfall of companies like orkut and nokia, example #3: employee engagement in tough time, how lays company analysis its market- case study and its solutions, example #4: david berman, example #5: dozier industries a and b, example #6: simon’s hostile tender, example #7: stermon mills.
Example #9: home depot inc, example #10: porcinis prontos, example #11: walmart around the world harvard case solution & analysis, example #12: production & marketing departments interconnected, example #13: apple company case on changing its advertisements strategy.
Example #15:, how to prepare a case solution, focus on your analysis, think out of the box, drafting the case study ( a rough draft), introduction, main idea of the case, proposed solutions and recommendations in conclusions sub-heading.
Submit your case study, money forward , game theory: how to make it pay , giberson’s glass studio , gender and free speech at google (a) case , contact us:.
Research on 107 studies reveals large flaws
However, new findings released in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs may water down our high spirits, indicating that consuming any amount of alcohol may be detrimental to health and lower your life expectancy.
The NHS recommends you drink no more than 14 units of alcohol a week, spread across 3 days or more. That's around 6 medium (175ml) glasses of wine, or 6 pints of 4% beer. There's no completely safe level of drinking, but sticking within these guidelines lowers your risk of harming your health.
A systematic review of 107 published studies by the University of Victoria, Canada, found that some papers were biased about their selection criteria, skewing results towards the finding that low-volume drinkers – between one drink per week and two drinks per day – appear to live longer than abstainers. Some criteria included:
As predicted, ‘higher-quality studies’ studies using a mean age of 55 years or younger, excluding former and occasional drinkers , and analysing alcohol use over less than 30 days, reported significantly higher risks of all-cause mortality for low-volume drinkers.
‘These studies least likely to be biased had no significant reduction of mortality risk among lower-volume drinkers,’ said the report – the team found just six of the 107 studies they reviewed dealt with these biases satisfactorily. Conversely, biased studies created ‘the false appearance of health benefits from moderate drinking.’
‘It’s been a propaganda coup for the alcohol industry to propose that moderate use of their product lengthens people’s lives,’ Dr Tim Stockwell, lead author and a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, said to The Guardian .
‘The idea has impacted national drinking guidelines, estimates of alcohol’s burden of disease worldwide and has been an impediment to effective policymaking on alcohol and public health,’ he added.
‘The [high-quality] studies suggest a linear relationship,’ he continued in New Scientist . ‘The more you drink, the higher your risk of heart disease, which is the main issue.’
Read now: These are the 5 things to consider before getting a bob
Cut through the noise and get practical, expert advice, home workouts, easy nutrition and more direct to your inbox. Sign up to the WOMEN'S HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Kate puts together fitness content that covers functional and strength training , cardio , workout challenges , interviews and news. She's often doing gym laundry or listening to music.
What Olympians really eat
What Olympic hockey player Giselle Ansley eats
How Olympic rower Helen Glover fuels
What Olympic weightlifter Emily Campbell eats
What is the MIND diet and is it worth trying?
3/4 of Brits drink less than 1L of water a day
What is a healthy diet for diabetes?
Can you become lactose intolerant as an adult?
How much protein do I need to eat to build muscle?
4 benefits of dragon fruit, according to experts
Multivitamins won’t extend your life, says study
Objective To determine the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid.
Design Systematic review.
Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies reporting on patients with long covid and symptoms of long covid, with vaccination before and after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool.
Results 1645 articles were screened but no randomised controlled trials were found. 16 observational studies from five countries (USA, UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were identified that reported on 614 392 patients. The most common symptoms of long covid that were studied were fatigue, cough, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, muscle ache, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion. 12 studies reported data on vaccination before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and 10 showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long covid: the odds ratio of developing long covid with one dose of vaccine ranged from 0.22 to 1.03; with two doses, odds ratios were 0.25-1; with three doses, 0.16; and with any dose, 0.48-1.01. Five studies reported on vaccination after infection, with odds ratios of 0.38-0.91. The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. The studies failed to adjust for potential confounders, such as other protective behaviours and missing data, thus increasing the risk of bias and decreasing the certainty of evidence to low.
Conclusions Current studies suggest that covid-19 vaccines might have protective and therapeutic effects on long covid. More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed, however, to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid.
Protocol registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e8jdy .
No additional data available.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000385
Request permissions.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Long covid is a serious new public health problem, and how vaccination against covid-19 disease affects patients with long covid is unclear
No randomised controlled trials have assessed the effect of covid-19 vaccination on preventing or treating long covid
Data from 16 observational studies suggest that covid-19 vaccination could protect against long covid
Observational studies suggest that vaccination might help those with a diagnosis of long covid
More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid
Long covid, also known as post-acute covid-19 sequalae or post-acute covid-19 syndrome, is recognised as a major concern after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and will likely cause substantial global morbidity for many years. 1 2 With global numbers of infections of more than 500 million and a conservative prevalence of 20-30%, more than 100 million people could be currently affected by long covid worldwide. 3–5
In October 2021, the World Health Organization defined long covid as symptoms occurring in people with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually within three months, and lasting for at least two months, that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. 6 7 Many symptoms associated with long covid have been reported that can last for months, and the common symptoms include, but are not limited to, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, head, body, and joint pains, and dyspnoea. 8 9 Factors such as female sex, severe initial disease, and comorbid conditions seem to be associated with the risk of long covid. 10
Interest in the effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid has been growing. 2 11 Recent observational studies give contradictory results, however, and have methodological flaws, which preclude firm conclusions on the effect of vaccination on long covid. 12 13 The covid-19 vaccines could work on three levels to prevent or treat long covid: firstly, by preventing infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus; secondly, by reducing the severity of the disease in people who have been vaccinated and are then infected with the virus; and thirdly, by benefiting people who already have long covid. Hence the aim of our study was to assess the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and also after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid.
We conducted a systematic review with enhanced processes and automation tools. 14 The systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. 15 Our protocol was shared on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/e8jdy ) on 2 March 2022.
We searched the PROSPERO and Open Science Framework databases to exclude similar reviews. We then searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials for published studies, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022. A search string of medical subject headings terms and words was developed in PubMed and translated to run in other databases with the Polyglot search translator. 16 Online supplemental file 1 shows the search strategies for all databases.
We also conducted forward and backward citation searches of the included studies. For registered studies, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were run from inception to 3 August 2022 ( appendix 1 ). We also checked the VIEW-hub database ( www.view-hub.org ), a collaboration between the International Vaccine Access Centre and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. No publication type or language restrictions were applied. We also contacted authors of large vaccine trials for any unpublished data on long covid.
We included randomised controlled trials, cohort studies (retrospectively or prospectively assembled), interrupted time series, and case-control studies. We excluded case reports, case series, cross sectional studies, and modelling studies. We searched for studies that assessed vaccination status and the emergence of long covid (history of confirmed or probable covid-19 within the past three months and symptoms that lasted at least two months that could not be explained by an alternative diagnosis). Studies conducted in the community, primary care, and hospital settings were included.
Our inclusion criteria were people of all ages who were eligible to receive a covid-19 vaccine. The interventions were any dose of a covid-19 vaccine recognised by WHO (ie, BNT 162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (elasomeran, Moderna), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen or Johnson & Johnson)), before or after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection, or after a diagnois of long covid. Comparators were no vaccination, an active non-covid-19 vaccine control (eg, influenza vaccine), or placebo.
The primary outcomes were patients with a diagnosis of long covid, according to the WHO definition (ie, history of confirmed or probable covid-19 within the past three months and symptoms that lasted at least two months that could not be explained by an alternative diagnosis), and remission or resolution of long covid in patients who were vaccinated after a diagnosis of long covid. The secondary outcome was prevalence of individual symptoms of long covid, such as prolonged fatigue, shortness of breath, cognitive difficulties, and loss of sense of smell. We excluded protocols, studies that did not report long covid outcomes, and studies with uncertain vaccination status at the time of infection ( figure 1 ).
Screening and selection of studies
Two of the authors (OB and PS) independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full text articles were retrieved for potentially eligible articles. The full texts were then reviewed against the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by referring to a third author (PG). Figure 1 summarises the screening process. Online supplemental file 2 lists the excluded articles and reasons for exclusion.
Two of the authors (OB and PS) extracted the data with Microsoft Excel. Study characteristics and outcomes extracted from each study were: methods (study authors, year, country, study design, length of follow-up, and setting); participants (number of participants, age, sex, and any co-comorbidities); interventions (type of intervention, dose, and frequency) and type of comparators (no treatment, other non-covid-19 vaccine, or placebo); and outcomes (patients with long covid (primary outcome) and prevalence of individual symptoms (secondary outcome)).
Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool, which can assess both randomised and non-randomised studies on a common template. 17 Two of the authors (OB and PS) independently assessed the risk of bias for each study.
We did not conduct meta-analyses because of the high heterogeneity of the data. For dichotomous outcomes, the effect of the intervention was calculated with odds ratios. For one study, we calculated the odds ratio from the reported mean differences. 18 We used individual participants as the unit of analysis. When data were missing or unclear, the study investigators were contacted. We found no registered trials for vaccines and long covid. We could only present subgroups by dose of vaccine and timing of vaccine dose.
Patients and the public were not involved in this review. Systematic reviews identify and analyse relevant primary studies to answer a specific research question, but they are not conducted on patients or public directly. We plan to disseminate our results through open access publication, our institute’s monthly newsletter, and preprint database update.
Of 1645 titles and abstracts screened, 40 full text articles were assessed for inclusion ( figure 1 ). We found no eligible randomised trials. The 16 eligible observational studies (including seven preprints) were based on data from five countries (USA (n=8), UK (n=4), the Netherlands (n=2), France (n=1), and Italy (n=1)) that included 614 392 patients 19–34 ( tables 1 and 2 ). Online supplemental file 2 lists the articles that were excluded and the reasons for exclusion.
Characteristics of included studies of vaccines given before infection
Characteristics of included studies when vaccines were given after infection or after a diagnosis of long covid
Eleven studies assessed the effect of a vaccine given before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus 19–29 ( table 1 ); four studies assessed the effects of a vaccine after infection and after a diagnosis of long covid 30 32–34 ( table 2 ). One study provided data for both vaccination before and after infection and therefore was included in both tables. 31 Five of the studies used data from three large medical databases, 19 23 27 29 31 five studies used the covid-19 symptom study app user data or national covid-19 survey data, 20 21 25 28 30 two studies involved healthcare workers and professionals, 22 24 and four studies recruited patients who already had symptoms of long covid to prospectively follow for remission or recovery. 30 32–34
All but one study was conducted and concluded by December 2021, and thus did not include data on the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 22 Only one study cited the current case definition of long covid by WHO. 34 Five studies did not provide a clear definition of long covid but reported 3-6 months of follow-up outcomes. 19 21 23 25 28 Five studies used symptoms lasting longer than 28 days since the onset of acute infection as the cut-off for long covid. 20 22 26 29 30 Nine studies used self-reported symptoms as a diagnosis of long covid, 20–22 24 28 30 32–34 five studies used ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) codes to determine organ-system symptoms related to long covid to establish the presence of long covid, 19 23 27 29 31 one study used electronic health record data, 26 and one study used a combination of patient self-report and ICD-10 codes. 25
Secondary outcomes were reported in four studies. 20 25 26 30 The most common symptoms of long covid were fatigue, cough, weakness and tiredness, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, muscle ache, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion.
The high heterogeneity between studies precluded a meaningful meta-analysis. The forest plot of the outcomes of each study showed high heterogeneity ( figure 2 ). Twelve studies reported data on vaccination before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 19–29 31 of which 10 showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long covid. 19–26 29 31 The odds ratio of developing long covid with one dose of vaccine before infection ranged from 0.22 to 1.03; for two doses, odds ratios were 0.25-1.02; and with any dose of vaccine before infection, the odds ratio was 0.48-1.01. One study reported the odds of having long covid at one month after infection with three doses of vaccine (odds ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.85). 22 The five studies that reported data on vaccination after infection had odds ratios ranging from 0.38 to 0.91. Two studies that assessed remission 32 and recovery 34 from long covid reported the odds of not recovering when patients were vaccinated after infection as 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.81) and 0.64 (0.17 to 2.33), respectively. Online supplemental file 3 shows all ratios and their explanations, along with timeframes.
Forest plot of the effect of covid-19 vaccine doses on long covid. Only relevant outcomes from all reported outcomes in individual studies were chosen. The ratios have a range of time frames ( tables 1 and 2 , and online supplemental file 3 ). IV=inverse variance
The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies of interventions. The risk of bias of the individual studies was judged overall as moderate to critical. The primary sources of increased bias were domains that dealt with confounding, missing data, and measurement of outcomes. The main concerns arising from confounding were not accounting for vaccine hesitancy or severity of the original disease. Most of the studies did not report on how missing data were dealt with.
Bias in measurement of outcomes was rated moderate to critical in studies where the exposure (vaccination) and outcome measurements (symptoms of long covid) were collected together, or where participants were aware of their exposure at the time of the measurement and thus the reporting of the outcome could be potentially influenced by that knowledge. Another reason for the increased bias in outcome measurements was the unclear definition of long covid, particularly in studies that analysed data from electronic health record databases ( table 3 ). Online supplemental file 4 provides further methodological details of the included studies.
Risk of bias in included studies assessed by the ROBINS-I tool
We found no randomised controlled trials, but 16 observational studies provided outcomes on long covid. Six of the eight studies of two or more doses of vaccine given before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus found significant reductions in the rates of long covid. A similar result was less clear with only one dose of vaccine. Three of the five studies of vaccination after the infection showed significant reductions in patients with long covid, but none showed any harm of vaccination. Owing to insufficient data, we could not examine any dose-response association. All 16 studies were non-randomised, and most were assessed as having a moderate to critical risk of bias. Thus the evidence summarised here is of low certainty.
The strengths of our review were the search of multiple databases for published (including preprints) and unpublished articles, and public health reports. We critically assessed the risk of bias of the included studies to identify the main sources of bias.
Our study had several limitations. The greatest challenge in conducting this review was the validity of the diagnoses of long covid in the included studies. Most studies established a diagnosis of long covid based on the length of time symptoms were reported by participants or on data from electronic health records and ICD-10 codes, rather than from healthcare professionals, as anticipated. The studies also used different cut-off times for long covid; the shortest was 28 days. After infection with the virus, many symptoms, such as fatigue, routinely last more than a month. 35 Although the WHO Delphi consensus on the definition of long covid was much needed, lack of awareness of the definition by health professionals might be hindering the diagnosis of long covid and therefore real world data on long covid.
Furthermore, we could not recalculate a common ratio for most of the studies and so we plotted relative risk ratio, odds ratio, and hazard ratio reported by the studies together as a close approximation. 36 Also, we could not conduct a meta-analysis of the studies because of the high heterogeneity and lack of data on the types of vaccines, time between exposure and disease, and variants of the virus, highlighting the need for standardisation and validation studies of outcome measures for ongoing research on long covid.
Another limitation was that not many of our included studies reported on our secondary outcome, prevalence of individual symptoms of long covid. Several studies showed changes in symptoms after vaccination, but they were mostly cross sectional in design and thus establishing true causality was not possible; these studies were excluded. Furthermore, the characteristics and symptomatology of long covid are becoming well established with global data. 1 5 37
One systematic review, 38 one scoping review, 39 and two government reports (by Public Health Ontario and UK Health Security agency) estimated the effect of vaccination on long covid. 40 41 The government reports were rapid reviews and therefore a rigorous search or quality assessments on the reported studies was not done. All four studies included multiple cross sectional studies and only narratively explained the findings. Because of the lack of rigorous inclusion criteria, these reviews cannot be used to establish the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing long covid. Our review also includes more up-to-date evidence.
Vaccines against covid-19 disease have been found to prevent infection in patients, particularly for the earlier variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and so would prevent long covid by preventing the initial infection. Less clear, although highly plausible, has been whether vaccines, by reducing the severity of symptoms of covid-19, reduce the prevalence of long covid after infection. The studies we identified were inconsistent, although the results showed a tendency towards vaccines reducing the prevalence of long covid. Vaccination after infection and in those with long covid has been more controversial, but the studies we identified are reassuringly consistent in being protective.
A key finding of this review was the lack of high quality studies, particularly randomised trials, to determine the effect of vaccines on long covid. This finding has several implications for future research. Firstly, the best data on the effect of vaccines in patients with long covid after breakthrough infections (ie, infections that occur after vaccination) could have come from large clinical trials of vaccines. Our search for these data showed that trials on the efficacy of vaccines did not plan or collect suitable data for these outcome. Designing follow-up studies of breakthrough infections from ongoing vaccine trials to estimate rates of long covid is still possible.
Secondly, ongoing trials on the effectiveness of vaccines in children should include provisions for longer follow-up of patients who are infected with the virus after vaccination. Thirdly, the studies included in our review were conducted up to December 2021 and so do not include data on the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Data from the UK Office for National Statistics found that the omicron variant of the virus caused the greatest number of patients with covid-19 and long covid in the UK. 42 But a new analysis that compared the periods in the UK when the delta and omicron variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were the most prevalent, showed that during the omicron wave, the prevalence of long covid was about half that in previous waves, and patients infected with the omicron variant were less likely to have long covid even with more than six months between vaccination and infection (odds ratio 0.24-0.50). 43
Mapping long covid data to the different subvariants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus will also help inform public health measures against the spread of the pandemic. In the meantime, researchers should use trial emulation techniques to better estimate the effect of vaccines on different age groups and variants. In our review, only one study explicitly emulated a target trial 27 and less than half used propensity score matching when creating their comparator cohorts. 19 21 29 32–34
Fourthly, the data from our included studies also suggested that covid-19 vaccines at least provide equipoise in terms of prevention and treatment of long covid, and thus trials on the effect of vaccination in patients after infection and after a diagnosis of long covid should be conducted as a priority. Although vaccine coverage might seem high in many western countries, several studies reported vaccine hesitancy in patients with long covid (>50%) because of fear of worsening symptoms and the belief that covid-19 vaccines were contraindicated in long covid. 44 45 Finally, awareness of the case definition of long covid by medical professionals and management in parallel with the care needs of patients with long covid should be explored.
Covid-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented severe forms of the disease. The effect of the vaccines on preventing or treating long covid, however, was not conclusively established in this review. Many questions need to be answered as a priority, which will require agreed standards for outcomes, improved methods and analysis, better reporting, and application of these questions to current and future studies. This approach is particularly important for ongoing or new trials where consent should be obtained for follow-up of symptoms of long covid.
Not applicable.
We thank the authors of the eligible papers for their replies to our queries. We also thank David Henry for his methodological expertise on the risk-of-bias assessment.
Supplementary data.
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Twitter @OyukaMDPhD
Contributors PG conceived the study and co-designed the study with OB, PS, and KA. JC led the literature searches including backward and forward citation analysis. OB and PS conducted the parallel title, abstract, and full text screening. OB and PS did data extraction and analysis. All authors contributed to resolving disagreements throughout the study and to writing of the manuscript. PG is the guarantor. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Transparency: The lead author (the guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.
A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.
Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.
General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.
However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.
The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.
I. Introduction
As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:
Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.
II. Literature Review
The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:
III. Method
In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.
If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.
If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.
If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].
If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.
NOTE: The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.
IV. Discussion
The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:
Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.
Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.
Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.
Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.
Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .
Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.
V. Conclusion
As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.
The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.
Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:
Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.
Problems to Avoid
Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.
Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.
Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.
Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009; Kratochwill, Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education . Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.
At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research
Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:
Misunderstanding 1 : General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 : One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 : The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 : The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 : It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].
While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.
Search news archives, filter news articles.
Additional Navigation
August 1, 2024 : By Office of Communications & Public Engagement
Liberty University has announced the acquisition of the educational components of Virginia Technical Institute (VTI) in Altavista, Va.
VTI and Liberty have collaborated for more than a decade. Through Liberty’s Technical Studies Program , students take courses at VTI in welding, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, HVAC, and more while simultaneously earning their degree. Students use the courses for credit as electives or minors as they gain various credentials and licenses that can lead to more career options after graduation.
With the acquisition, Liberty will use VTI’s programming and resources to enhance its current for-credit course offerings and expand them into the not-for-credit environment through the Center for Professional and Continuing Education . Students — especially adult students, military veterans, and employees looking to learn a skill or trade — will gain the skills necessary to quickly enter the workforce rather than spend several years earning a degree.
“I believe this new acquisition reinforces our commitment to expanding skilled trade training,” said Liberty Provost and Chief Academic Officer Scott Hicks. “This strategic move will further the university’s mission to Train Champions for Christ by preparing students, the community, and beyond for successful careers in critical trades and further strengthening the future of our workforce.”
Liberty will build upon the trade school’s reputation as a quality deliverer of hands-on, technical and trades-based education.
“This alliance is another step on the highway of success for the technically gifted,” said VTI founder Dale Moore. “The shared vision between VTI and Liberty University will enhance trade training, fostering an environment where talent meets opportunity. Together, we are building dreams, creating hope for the future, and celebrating what God continues to do.”
VTI’s training curriculum is approved by the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER).
For more information on course offerings and the Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) in Technical Studies, visit the Technical Studies website .
The transferability of polygenic scores across population groups is a major concern with respect to the equitable clinical implementation of genomic medicine. Since genetic associations are identified relative to the population mean, inevitably differences in disease or trait prevalence among social strata influence the relationship between PGS and risk. Here we quantify the magnitude of PGS-by-Exposure (PGSxE) interactions for seven human diseases (coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity thresholded to body mass index and to waist-to-hip ratio, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic kidney disease, and asthma) and pairs of 75 exposures in the White-British subset of the UK Biobank study (n=408,801). Across 24,198 PGSxE models, 746 (3.1%) were significant by two criteria, at least three-fold more than expected by chance under each criterion. Predictive accuracy is significantly improved in the high-risk exposures and by including interaction terms with effects as large as those documented for low transferability of PGS across ancestries. The predominant mechanism for PGS×E interactions is shown to be amplification of genetic effects in the presence of adverse exposures such as low polyunsaturated fatty acids, mediators of obesity, and social determinants of ill health. We introduce the notion of the proportion needed to benefit (PNB) which is the cumulative number needed to treat across the range of the PGS and show that typically this is halved in the 70 th to 80 th percentile. These findings emphasize how individuals experiencing adverse exposures stand to preferentially benefit from interventions that may reduce risk, and highlight the need for more comprehensive sampling across socioeconomic groups in the performance of genome-wide association studies.
The authors have declared no competing interest.
This work was supported by a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to G.G. (R01-DK119991). Analyses using the UK Biobank Resource were performed under Institutional Review Board approved application number 17984.
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Analyses using the UK Biobank Resource were performed under Institutional Review Board approved application number 17984.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
View the discussion thread.
Supplementary Material
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.
NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.
Organo nhc catalyzed aqueous synthesis of 4β-isoxazole-podophyllotoxins: in vitro anticancer, caspase activation, tubulin polymerization inhibition and molecular docking studies †.
* Corresponding authors
a Department of Chemistry, Chaitanya (Deemed to be University), Himayathnagar (V), Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy (D), Hyderabad, India E-mail: [email protected]
b Department of Biotechnology, Chaitanya (Deemed to be University), Himayathnagar (V), Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy (D), Hyderabad, India
c Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Telangana University, Nizamabad, TS, India E-mail: [email protected]
We present, for the first time, the organo- N -heterocyclic carbene (NHC) catalyzed 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of 4β- O -propargyl podophyllotoxin ( 1 ) with in situ aromatic nitrile oxides to afford regioselective 4β-isoxazolepodophyllotoxin hybrids ( 6a–n ) in benign aqueous-organic media. Preliminary anticancer activity results showed that compound 6e displayed superior activity against MCF-7, HeLa and MIA PaCa2 human cell lines compared with podophyllotoxin. Compounds 6j and 6n showed greater activity against the MCF-7 cell line than the positive control. Caspase activation studies revealed that compound 6e at 20 μg ml −1 concentration had greater caspase 3/7 activation in MCF-7 and MIAPaCa2 cells than podophyllotoxin. Furthermore, in vitro tubulin polymerization inhibition studies revealed that compound 6e showed comparable activity with podophyllotoxin. Finally, in silico molecular docking studies of compounds 6e , 6j , 6n and podophyllotoxin on α,β-tubulin (pdb id 1SA0 ) revealed that compound 6n showed excellent binding energies and inhibition constants compared with podophyllotoxin.
To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.
View this article’s peer review history
Permissions.
R. Nagavath, M. K. Thupurani, V. Badithapuram, R. Manchal, C. S. Vasam and N. S. Thirukovela, RSC Adv. , 2024, 14 , 23574 DOI: 10.1039/D4RA04297B
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.
If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .
Search articles by author, advertisements.
COMMENTS
Identify the key problems and issues in the case study. Formulate and include a thesis statement, summarizing the outcome of your analysis in 1-2 sentences. Background. Set the scene: background information, relevant facts, and the most important issues. Demonstrate that you have researched the problems in this case study. Evaluation of the Case
It's been 100 years since Harvard Business School began using the case study method. Beyond teaching specific subject matter, the case study method excels in instilling meta-skills in students.
The Draft Review. After the case study is composed, you'll want to send a draft to the customer, allowing an opportunity to give you feedback and edits. The Final Approval. Once any necessary edits are completed, send a revised copy of the case study to the customer for final approval.
1. Examine and describe the business environment relevant to the case study. Describe the nature of the organization under consideration and its competitors. Provide general information about the market and customer base. Indicate any significant changes in the business environment or any new endeavors upon which the business is embarking. 2.
Case studies are a type of review but more in depth, aiming to show — rather than just tell — the positive experiences that customers have with a brand. ... Case study formats can include traditional print stories, interactive web or social content, data-heavy infographics, professionally shot videos, podcasts, and more. 5. Write your case ...
Revised on November 20, 2023. A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are ...
The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case ...
Although case studies have been discussed extensively in the literature, little has been written about the specific steps one may use to conduct case study research effectively (Gagnon, 2010; Hancock & Algozzine, 2016).Baskarada (2014) also emphasized the need to have a succinct guideline that can be practically followed as it is actually tough to execute a case study well in practice.
In this article, we explore the concept of a case study, including its writing process, benefits, various types, challenges, and more.. How to write a case study. Understanding how to write a case study is an invaluable skill. You'll need to embrace decision-making - from deciding which customers to feature to designing the best format to make them as engaging as possible.
The best way to review a manuscript is to read the manuscript in full for a gross overview and develop general comments. Thereafter, the reviewer should address each section of the manuscript separately and precisely. This may be done after a literature search if the reviewer needs to substantiate his/her commentary.
The purpose of case study research is twofold: (1) to provide descriptive information and (2) to suggest theoretical relevance. Rich description enables an in-depth or sharpened understanding of the case. It is unique given one characteristic: case studies draw from more than one data source. Case studies are inherently multimodal or mixed ...
Case studies are designed to suit the case and research question and published case studies demonstrate wide diversity in study design. There are two popular case study approaches in qualitative research. The first, proposed by Stake ( 1995) and Merriam ( 2009 ), is situated in a social constructivist paradigm, whereas the second, by Yin ( 2012 ...
Purpose of case study methodology. Case study methodology is often used to develop an in-depth, holistic understanding of a specific phenomenon within a specified context. 11 It focuses on studying one or multiple cases over time and uses an in-depth analysis of multiple information sources. 16,17 It is ideal for situations including, but not limited to, exploring under-researched and real ...
This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable. Types of Reviews. Review the table to peruse review types and ...
The Case Analysis Coach is an interactive tutorial on reading and analyzing a case study. The Case Study Handbook covers key skills students need to read, understand, discuss and write about cases. The Case Study Handbook is also available as individual chapters to help your students focus on specific skills.
Of the 10 clinical trials included in the review, three studies appeared to have low risk of bias. The mean follow-up period was 14 days, ranging from 7 to 21 days. The sample size in each study ...
Definitions of qualitative case study research. Case study research is an investigation and analysis of a single or collective case, intended to capture the complexity of the object of study (Stake, Citation 1995).Qualitative case study research, as described by Stake (Citation 1995), draws together "naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological, and biographic research methods ...
Reviewing a clinical case is different from reviewing a research study. Although many clinical cases may be worth publishing in the journal, the editors focus on manuscripts that provide unique clinical insights for practicing cardiologists at all levels of expertise. In the current short summary, we propose helpful hints for reviewers that can ...
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the ...
Two cases on the uses of debt and equity at Hertz claimed top spots in the CRDT's (Case Research and Development Team) 2021 top 40 review of cases. Hertz (A) took the top spot. The case details the financial structure of the rental car company through the end of 2019. Hertz (B), which ranked third in CRDT's list, describes the company's ...
Case study is a research strategy and an inquiry which is based on the real life problems of an individual, organization, group or an event. Case studies are in depth investigation about the particular individual, group or event. A research that gives a detailed scenario about a person, group or event which is done for the enhancement of the writer's assessment skills in other words a ...
A systematic review of 107 published studies by the University of Victoria, Canada, found that some papers were biased about their selection criteria, skewing results towards the finding that low ...
The College Board's revised AP African-American-studies curriculum is still radical, one-sided, political, and propagandistic.
Objective To determine the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022. Eligibility ...
Religious Studies Review. Volume 50, Issue 2 p. 319-326. Review Essay. Rhetoric and New Testament Studies. Bart Bruehler, Corresponding Author. Bart Bruehler [email protected] Indiana Wesleyan University. Search for more papers by this author. Bart Bruehler, Corresponding Author.
The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case ...
Academics & Degrees mega_dropdown_icon. Liberty University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees through residential and online programs. Choose from more than 700 programs of study.
The transferability of polygenic scores across population groups is a major concern with respect to the equitable clinical implementation of genomic medicine. Since genetic associations are identified relative to the population mean, inevitably differences in disease or trait prevalence among social strata influence the relationship between PGS and risk. Here we quantify the magnitude of PGS ...
Finally, in silico molecular docking studies of compounds 6e, 6j, 6n and podophyllotoxin on α,β-tubulin (pdb id 1SA0) revealed that compound 6n showed excellent binding energies and inhibition constants compared with podophyllotoxin. ... Transparent peer review. To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the ...