case study methodology evaluation

• Open Access
• Published: 27 November 2020

Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials

• Aileen Grant 1 ,
• Carol Bugge 2 &
• Mary Wells 3  

Trials volume  21 , Article number:  982 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

9067 Accesses

6 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Process evaluations are an important component of an effectiveness evaluation as they focus on understanding the relationship between interventions and context to explain how and why interventions work or fail, and whether they can be transferred to other settings and populations. However, historically, context has not been sufficiently explored and reported resulting in the poor uptake of trial results. Therefore, suitable methodologies are needed to guide the investigation of context. Case study is one appropriate methodology, but there is little guidance about what case study design can offer the study of context in trials. We address this gap in the literature by presenting a number of important considerations for process evaluation using a case study design.

In this paper, we define context, the relationship between complex interventions and context, and describe case study design methodology. A well-designed process evaluation using case study should consider the following core components: the purpose; definition of the intervention; the trial design, the case, the theories or logic models underpinning the intervention, the sampling approach and the conceptual or theoretical framework. We describe each of these in detail and highlight with examples from recently published process evaluations.

Conclusions

There are a number of approaches to process evaluation design in the literature; however, there is a paucity of research on what case study design can offer process evaluations. We argue that case study is one of the best research designs to underpin process evaluations, to capture the dynamic and complex relationship between intervention and context during implementation. We provide a comprehensive overview of the issues for process evaluation design to consider when using a case study design.

Trial registration

DQIP - ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502 - OPAL - ISRCTN57746448

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

We illustrate how case study methodology can explore the complex, dynamic and uncertain relationship between context and interventions within trials.

We depict different case study designs and illustrate there is not one formula and that design needs to be tailored to the context and trial design.

Case study can support comparisons between intervention and control arms and between cases within arms to uncover and explain differences in detail.

We argue that case study can illustrate how components have evolved and been redefined through implementation.

Key issues for consideration in case study design within process evaluations are presented and illustrated with examples.

Process evaluations are an important component of an effectiveness evaluation as they focus on understanding the relationship between interventions and context to explain how and why interventions work or fail and whether they can be transferred to other settings and populations. However, historically, not all trials have had a process evaluation component, nor have they sufficiently reported aspects of context, resulting in poor uptake of trial findings [ 1 ]. Considerations of context are often absent from published process evaluations, with few studies acknowledging, taking account of or describing context during implementation, or assessing the impact of context on implementation [ 2 , 3 ]. At present, evidence from trials is not being used in a timely manner [ 4 , 5 ], and this can negatively impact on patient benefit and experience [ 6 ]. It takes on average 17 years for knowledge from research to be implemented into practice [ 7 ]. Suitable methodologies are therefore needed that allow for context to be exposed; one appropriate methodological approach is case study [ 8 , 9 ].

In 2015, the Medical Research Council (MRC) published guidance for process evaluations [ 10 ]. This was a key milestone in legitimising as well as providing tools, methods and a framework for conducting process evaluations. Nevertheless, as with all guidance, there is a need for reflection, challenge and refinement. There have been a number of critiques of the MRC guidance, including that interventions should be considered as events in systems [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]; a need for better use, critique and development of theories [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]; and a need for more guidance on integrating qualitative and quantitative data [ 18 , 19 ]. Although the MRC process evaluation guidance does consider appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, it does not mention case study design and what it can offer the study of context in trials.

The case study methodology is ideally suited to real-world, sustainable intervention development and evaluation because it can explore and examine contemporary complex phenomena, in depth, in numerous contexts and using multiple sources of data [ 8 ]. Case study design can capture the complexity of the case, the relationship between the intervention and the context and how the intervention worked (or not) [ 8 ]. There are a number of textbooks on a case study within the social science fields [ 8 , 9 , 20 ], but there are no case study textbooks and a paucity of useful texts on how to design, conduct and report case study within the health arena. Few examples exist within the trial design and evaluation literature [ 3 , 21 ]. Therefore, guidance to enable well-designed process evaluations using case study methodology is required.

We aim to address the gap in the literature by presenting a number of important considerations for process evaluation using a case study design. First, we define the context and describe the relationship between complex health interventions and context.

What is context?

While there is growing recognition that context interacts with the intervention to impact on the intervention’s effectiveness [ 22 ], context is still poorly defined and conceptualised. There are a number of different definitions in the literature, but as Bate et al. explained ‘almost universally, we find context to be an overworked word in everyday dialogue but a massively understudied and misunderstood concept’ [ 23 ]. Ovretveit defines context as ‘everything the intervention is not’ [ 24 ]. This last definition is used by the MRC framework for process evaluations [ 25 ]; however; the problem with this definition is that it is highly dependent on how the intervention is defined. We have found Pfadenhauer et al.’s definition useful:

Context is conceptualised as a set of characteristics and circumstances that consist of active and unique factors that surround the implementation. As such it is not a backdrop for implementation but interacts, influences, modifies and facilitates or constrains the intervention and its implementation. Context is usually considered in relation to an intervention or object, with which it actively interacts. A boundary between the concepts of context and setting is discernible: setting refers to the physical, specific location in which the intervention is put into practice. Context is much more versatile, embracing not only the setting but also roles, interactions and relationships [ 22 ].

Traditionally, context has been conceptualised in terms of barriers and facilitators, but what is a barrier in one context may be a facilitator in another, so it is the relationship and dynamics between the intervention and context which are the most important [ 26 ]. There is a need for empirical research to really understand how different contextual factors relate to each other and to the intervention. At present, research studies often list common contextual factors, but without a depth of meaning and understanding, such as government or health board policies, organisational structures, professional and patient attitudes, behaviours and beliefs [ 27 ]. The case study methodology is well placed to understand the relationship between context and intervention where these boundaries may not be clearly evident. It offers a means of unpicking the contextual conditions which are pertinent to effective implementation.

The relationship between complex health interventions and context

Health interventions are generally made up of a number of different components and are considered complex due to the influence of context on their implementation and outcomes [ 3 , 28 ]. Complex interventions are often reliant on the engagement of practitioners and patients, so their attitudes, behaviours, beliefs and cultures influence whether and how an intervention is effective or not. Interventions are context-sensitive; they interact with the environment in which they are implemented. In fact, many argue that interventions are a product of their context, and indeed, outcomes are likely to be a product of the intervention and its context [ 3 , 29 ]. Within a trial, there is also the influence of the research context too—so the observed outcome could be due to the intervention alone, elements of the context within which the intervention is being delivered, elements of the research process or a combination of all three. Therefore, it can be difficult and unhelpful to separate the intervention from the context within which it was evaluated because the intervention and context are likely to have evolved together over time. As a result, the same intervention can look and behave differently in different contexts, so it is important this is known, understood and reported [ 3 ]. Finally, the intervention context is dynamic; the people, organisations and systems change over time, [ 3 ] which requires practitioners and patients to respond, and they may do this by adapting the intervention or contextual factors. So, to enable researchers to replicate successful interventions, or to explain why the intervention was not successful, it is not enough to describe the components of the intervention, they need to be described by their relationship to their context and resources [ 3 , 28 ].

What is a case study?

Case study methodology aims to provide an in-depth, holistic, balanced, detailed and complete picture of complex contemporary phenomena in its natural context [ 8 , 9 , 20 ]. In this case, the phenomena are the implementation of complex interventions in a trial. Case study methodology takes the view that the phenomena can be more than the sum of their parts and have to be understood as a whole [ 30 ]. It is differentiated from a clinical case study by its analytical focus [ 20 ].

The methodology is particularly useful when linked to trials because some of the features of the design naturally fill the gaps in knowledge generated by trials. Given the methodological focus on understanding phenomena in the round, case study methodology is typified by the use of multiple sources of data, which are more commonly qualitatively guided [ 31 ]. The case study methodology is not epistemologically specific, like realist evaluation, and can be used with different epistemologies [ 32 ], and with different theories, such as Normalisation Process Theory (which explores how staff work together to implement a new intervention) or the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (which provides a menu of constructs associated with effective implementation) [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Realist evaluation can be used to explore the relationship between context, mechanism and outcome, but case study differs from realist evaluation by its focus on a holistic and in-depth understanding of the relationship between an intervention and the contemporary context in which it was implemented [ 36 ]. Case study enables researchers to choose epistemologies and theories which suit the nature of the enquiry and their theoretical preferences.

Designing a process evaluation using case study

An important part of any study is the research design. Due to their varied philosophical positions, the seminal authors in the field of case study have different epistemic views as to how a case study should be conducted [ 8 , 9 ]. Stake takes an interpretative approach (interested in how people make sense of their world), and Yin has more positivistic leanings, arguing for objectivity, validity and generalisability [ 8 , 9 ].

Regardless of the philosophical background, a well-designed process evaluation using case study should consider the following core components: the purpose; the definition of the intervention, the trial design, the case, and the theories or logic models underpinning the intervention; the sampling approach; and the conceptual or theoretical framework [ 8 , 9 , 20 , 31 , 33 ]. We now discuss these critical components in turn, with reference to two process evaluations that used case study design, the DQIP and OPAL studies [ 21 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ].

The purpose of a process evaluation is to evaluate and explain the relationship between the intervention and its components, to context and outcome. It can help inform judgements about validity (by exploring the intervention components and their relationship with one another (construct validity), the connections between intervention and outcomes (internal validity) and the relationship between intervention and context (external validity)). It can also distinguish between implementation failure (where the intervention is poorly delivered) and intervention failure (intervention design is flawed) [ 42 , 43 ]. By using a case study to explicitly understand the relationship between context and the intervention during implementation, the process evaluation can explain the intervention effects and the potential generalisability and optimisation into routine practice [ 44 ].

The DQIP process evaluation aimed to qualitatively explore how patients and GP practices responded to an intervention designed to reduce high-risk prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet agents (see Table  1 ) and quantitatively examine how change in high-risk prescribing was associated with practice characteristics and implementation processes. The OPAL process evaluation (see Table  2 ) aimed to quantitatively understand the factors which influenced the effectiveness of a pelvic floor muscle training intervention for women with urinary incontinence and qualitatively explore the participants’ experiences of treatment and adherence.

Defining the intervention and exploring the theories or assumptions underpinning the intervention design

Process evaluations should also explore the utility of the theories or assumptions underpinning intervention design [ 49 ]. Not all theories underpinning interventions are based on a formal theory, but they based on assumptions as to how the intervention is expected to work. These can be depicted as a logic model or theory of change [ 25 ]. To capture how the intervention and context evolve requires the intervention and its expected mechanisms to be clearly defined at the outset [ 50 ]. Hawe and colleagues recommend defining interventions by function (what processes make the intervention work) rather than form (what is delivered) [ 51 ]. However, in some cases, it may be useful to know if some of the components are redundant in certain contexts or if there is a synergistic effect between all the intervention components.

The DQIP trial delivered two interventions, one intervention was delivered to professionals with high fidelity and then professionals delivered the other intervention to patients by form rather than function allowing adaptations to the local context as appropriate. The assumptions underpinning intervention delivery were prespecified in a logic model published in the process evaluation protocol [ 52 ].

Case study is well placed to challenge or reinforce the theoretical assumptions or redefine these based on the relationship between the intervention and context. Yin advocates the use of theoretical propositions; these direct attention to specific aspects of the study for investigation [ 8 ] can be based on the underlying assumptions and tested during the course of the process evaluation. In case studies, using an epistemic position more aligned with Yin can enable research questions to be designed, which seek to expose patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationships [ 9 ]. The OPAL trial was more closely aligned with Yin, where the research team predefined some of their theoretical assumptions, based on how the intervention was expected to work. The relevant parts of the data analysis then drew on data to support or refute the theoretical propositions. This was particularly useful for the trial as the prespecified theoretical propositions linked to the mechanisms of action on which the intervention was anticipated to have an effect (or not).

Tailoring to the trial design

Process evaluations need to be tailored to the trial, the intervention and the outcomes being measured [ 45 ]. For example, in a stepped wedge design (where the intervention is delivered in a phased manner), researchers should try to ensure process data are captured at relevant time points or in a two-arm or multiple arm trial, ensure data is collected from the control group(s) as well as the intervention group(s). In the DQIP trial, a stepped wedge trial, at least one process evaluation case, was sampled per cohort. Trials often continue to measure outcomes after delivery of the intervention has ceased, so researchers should also consider capturing ‘follow-up’ data on contextual factors, which may continue to influence the outcome measure. The OPAL trial had two active treatment arms so collected process data from both arms. In addition, as the trial was interested in long-term adherence, the trial and the process evaluation collected data from participants for 2 years after the intervention was initially delivered, providing 24 months follow-up data, in line with the primary outcome for the trial.

Defining the case

Case studies can include single or multiple cases in their design. Single case studies usually sample typical or unique cases, their advantage being the depth and richness that can be achieved over a long period of time. The advantages of multiple case study design are that cases can be compared to generate a greater depth of analysis. Multiple case study sampling may be carried out in order to test for replication or contradiction [ 8 ]. Given that trials are often conducted over a number of sites, a multiple case study design is more sensible for process evaluations, as there is likely to be variation in implementation between sites. Case definition may occur at a variety of levels but is most appropriate if it reflects the trial design. For example, a case in an individual patient level trial is likely to be defined as a person/patient (e.g. a woman with urinary incontinence—OPAL trial) whereas in a cluster trial, a case is like to be a cluster, such as an organisation (e.g. a general practice—DQIP trial). Of course, the process evaluation could explore cases with less distinct boundaries, such as communities or relationships; however, the clarity with which these cases are defined is important, in order to scope the nature of the data that will be generated.

Carefully sampled cases are critical to a good case study as sampling helps inform the quality of the inferences that can be made from the data [ 53 ]. In both qualitative and quantitative research, how and how many participants to sample must be decided when planning the study. Quantitative sampling techniques generally aim to achieve a random sample. Qualitative research generally uses purposive samples to achieve data saturation, occurring when the incoming data produces little or no new information to address the research questions. The term data saturation has evolved from theoretical saturation in conventional grounded theory studies; however, its relevance to other types of studies is contentious as the term saturation seems to be widely used but poorly justified [ 54 ]. Empirical evidence suggests that for in-depth interview studies, saturation occurs at 12 interviews for thematic saturation, but typically more would be needed for a heterogenous sample higher degrees of saturation [ 55 , 56 ]. Both DQIP and OPAL case studies were huge with OPAL designed to interview each of the 40 individual cases four times and DQIP designed to interview the lead DQIP general practitioner (GP) twice (to capture change over time), another GP and the practice manager from each of the 10 organisational cases. Despite the plethora of mixed methods research textbooks, there is very little about sampling as discussions typically link to method (e.g. interviews) rather than paradigm (e.g. case study).

Purposive sampling can improve the generalisability of the process evaluation by sampling for greater contextual diversity. The typical or average case is often not the richest source of information. Outliers can often reveal more important insights, because they may reflect the implementation of the intervention using different processes. Cases can be selected from a number of criteria, which are not mutually exclusive, to enable a rich and detailed picture to be built across sites [ 53 ]. To avoid the Hawthorne effect, it is recommended that process evaluations sample from both intervention and control sites, which enables comparison and explanation. There is always a trade-off between breadth and depth in sampling, so it is important to note that often quantity does not mean quality and that carefully sampled cases can provide powerful illustrative examples of how the intervention worked in practice, the relationship between the intervention and context and how and why they evolved together. The qualitative components of both DQIP and OPAL process evaluations aimed for maximum variation sampling. Please see Table  1 for further information on how DQIP’s sampling frame was important for providing contextual information on processes influencing effective implementation of the intervention.

Conceptual and theoretical framework

A conceptual or theoretical framework helps to frame data collection and analysis [ 57 ]. Theories can also underpin propositions, which can be tested in the process evaluation. Process evaluations produce intervention-dependent knowledge, and theories help make the research findings more generalizable by providing a common language [ 16 ]. There are a number of mid-range theories which have been designed to be used with process evaluation [ 34 , 35 , 58 ]. The choice of the appropriate conceptual or theoretical framework is, however, dependent on the philosophical and professional background of the research. The two examples within this paper used our own framework for the design of process evaluations, which proposes a number of candidate processes which can be explored, for example, recruitment, delivery, response, maintenance and context [ 45 ]. This framework was published before the MRC guidance on process evaluations, and both the DQIP and OPAL process evaluations were designed before the MRC guidance was published. The DQIP process evaluation explored all candidates in the framework whereas the OPAL process evaluation selected four candidates, illustrating that process evaluations can be selective in what they explore based on the purpose, research questions and resources. Furthermore, as Kislov and colleagues argue, we also have a responsibility to critique the theoretical framework underpinning the evaluation and refine theories to advance knowledge [ 59 ].

Data collection

An important consideration is what data to collect or measure and when. Case study methodology supports a range of data collection methods, both qualitative and quantitative, to best answer the research questions. As the aim of the case study is to gain an in-depth understanding of phenomena in context, methods are more commonly qualitative or mixed method in nature. Qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and observation offer rich descriptions of the setting, delivery of the intervention in each site and arm, how the intervention was perceived by the professionals delivering the intervention and the patients receiving the intervention. Quantitative methods can measure recruitment, fidelity and dose and establish which characteristics are associated with adoption, delivery and effectiveness. To ensure an understanding of the complexity of the relationship between the intervention and context, the case study should rely on multiple sources of data and triangulate these to confirm and corroborate the findings [ 8 ]. Process evaluations might consider using routine data collected in the trial across all sites and additional qualitative data across carefully sampled sites for a more nuanced picture within reasonable resource constraints. Mixed methods allow researchers to ask more complex questions and collect richer data than can be collected by one method alone [ 60 ]. The use of multiple sources of data allows data triangulation, which increases a study’s internal validity but also provides a more in-depth and holistic depiction of the case [ 20 ]. For example, in the DQIP process evaluation, the quantitative component used routinely collected data from all sites participating in the trial and purposively sampled cases for a more in-depth qualitative exploration [ 21 , 38 , 39 ].

The timing of data collection is crucial to study design, especially within a process evaluation where data collection can potentially influence the trial outcome. Process evaluations are generally in parallel or retrospective to the trial. The advantage of a retrospective design is that the evaluation itself is less likely to influence the trial outcome. However, the disadvantages include recall bias, lack of sensitivity to nuances and an inability to iteratively explore the relationship between intervention and outcome as it develops. To capture the dynamic relationship between intervention and context, the process evaluation needs to be parallel and longitudinal to the trial. Longitudinal methodological design is rare, but it is needed to capture the dynamic nature of implementation [ 40 ]. How the intervention is delivered is likely to change over time as it interacts with context. For example, as professionals deliver the intervention, they become more familiar with it, and it becomes more embedded into systems. The OPAL process evaluation was a longitudinal, mixed methods process evaluation where the quantitative component had been predefined and built into trial data collection systems. Data collection in both the qualitative and quantitative components mirrored the trial data collection points, which were longitudinal to capture adherence and contextual changes over time.

There is a lot of attention in the recent literature towards a systems approach to understanding interventions in context, which suggests interventions are ‘events within systems’ [ 61 , 62 ]. This framing highlights the dynamic nature of context, suggesting that interventions are an attempt to change systems dynamics. This conceptualisation would suggest that the study design should collect contextual data before and after implementation to assess the effect of the intervention on the context and vice versa.

Data analysis

Designing a rigorous analysis plan is particularly important for multiple case studies, where researchers must decide whether their approach to analysis is case or variable based. Case-based analysis is the most common, and analytic strategies must be clearly articulated for within and across case analysis. A multiple case study design can consist of multiple cases, where each case is analysed at the case level, or of multiple embedded cases, where data from all the cases are pulled together for analysis at some level. For example, OPAL analysis was at the case level, but all the cases for the intervention and control arms were pulled together at the arm level for more in-depth analysis and comparison. For Yin, analytical strategies rely on theoretical propositions, but for Stake, analysis works from the data to develop theory. In OPAL and DQIP, case summaries were written to summarise the cases and detail within-case analysis. Each of the studies structured these differently based on the phenomena of interest and the analytic technique. DQIP applied an approach more akin to Stake [ 9 ], with the cases summarised around inductive themes whereas OPAL applied a Yin [ 8 ] type approach using theoretical propositions around which the case summaries were structured. As the data for each case had been collected through longitudinal interviews, the case summaries were able to capture changes over time. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss different analytic techniques; however, to ensure the holistic examination of the intervention(s) in context, it is important to clearly articulate and demonstrate how data is integrated and synthesised [ 31 ].

There are a number of approaches to process evaluation design in the literature; however, there is a paucity of research on what case study design can offer process evaluations. We argue that case study is one of the best research designs to underpin process evaluations, to capture the dynamic and complex relationship between intervention and context during implementation [ 38 ]. Case study can enable comparisons within and across intervention and control arms and enable the evolving relationship between intervention and context to be captured holistically rather than considering processes in isolation. Utilising a longitudinal design can enable the dynamic relationship between context and intervention to be captured in real time. This information is fundamental to holistically explaining what intervention was implemented, understanding how and why the intervention worked or not and informing the transferability of the intervention into routine clinical practice.

Case study designs are not prescriptive, but process evaluations using case study should consider the purpose, trial design, the theories or assumptions underpinning the intervention, and the conceptual and theoretical frameworks informing the evaluation. We have discussed each of these considerations in turn, providing a comprehensive overview of issues for process evaluations using a case study design. There is no single or best way to conduct a process evaluation or a case study, but researchers need to make informed choices about the process evaluation design. Although this paper focuses on process evaluations, we recognise that case study design could also be useful during intervention development and feasibility trials. Elements of this paper are also applicable to other study designs involving trials.

Availability of data and materials

No data and materials were used.

Abbreviations

Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care

Medical Research Council

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Optimizing Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises to Achieve Long-term benefits

Blencowe NB. Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1037–47.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dixon-Woods M. The problem of context in quality improvement. In: Foundation TH, editor. Perspectives on context: The Health Foundation; 2014.

Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J, Taylor J. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012;13(1):95.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grant A, Sullivan F, Dowell J. An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices? Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):72.

Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB. Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):355–63.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ward V, House AF, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(3):156–64.

Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

Yin R. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Stake R. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J. 2015;350.

Hawe P. Minimal, negligible and negligent interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:265–8.

Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C, Murphy S. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation. 2018;25(1):23–45.

Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.

Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, Greaves F, Harper L, Hawe P, Moore L, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602–4.

Moore G, Cambon L, Michie S, Arwidson P, Ninot G, Ferron C, Potvin L, Kellou N, Charlesworth J, Alla F, et al. Population health intervention research: the place of theories. Trials. 2019;20(1):285.

Kislov R. Engaging with theory: from theoretically informed to theoretically informative improvement research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):177–9.

Boulton R, Sandall J, Sevdalis N. The cultural politics of ‘Implementation Science’. J Med Human. 2020;41(3):379-94. h https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09607-9 .

Cheng KKF, Metcalfe A. Qualitative methods and process evaluation in clinical trials context: where to head to? Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17(1):1609406918774212.

Article   Google Scholar  

Richards DA, Bazeley P, Borglin G, Craig P, Emsley R, Frost J, Hill J, Horwood J, Hutchings HA, Jinks C, et al. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings when undertaking randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032081.

Thomas G. How to do your case study, 2nd edition edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2016.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: case study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3).

Pfadenhauer L, Rohwer A, Burns J, Booth A, Lysdahl KB, Hofmann B, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Tummers M, Wahlster P, et al. Guidance for the assessment of context and implementation in health technology assessments (HTA) and systematic reviews of complex interventions: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework: Integrate-HTA; 2016.

Bate P, Robert G, Fulop N, Ovretveit J, Dixon-Woods M. Perspectives on context. London: The Health Foundation; 2014.

Ovretveit J. Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20.

Medical Research Council: Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. 2015.

May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):141.

Bate P. Context is everything. In: Perpesctives on Context. The Health Foundation 2014.

Horton TJ, Illingworth JH, Warburton WHP. Overcoming challenges in codifying and replicating complex health care interventions. Health Aff. 2018;37(2):191–7.

O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingworth G, McPherson R, Bunn H, Graham I, Drake E. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33:267–79.

Creswell J, Poth C. Qualiative inquiry and research design, fourth edition edn. Thousan Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2018.

Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.

Takahashi ARW, Araujo L. Case study research: opening up research opportunities. RAUSP Manage J. 2020;55(1):100–11.

Tight M. Understanding case study research, small-scale research with meaning. London: Sage Publications; 2017.

May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalisation process theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice. A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4.

Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.

Dreischulte T, Donnan P, Grant A, Hapca A, McCowan C, Guthrie B. Safer prescribing - a trial of education, informatics & financial incentives. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1053–64.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: active and less active ingredients of a multi-component complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):4.

Dreischulte T, Grant A, Hapca A, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: quantitative examination of variation between practices in recruitment, implementation and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e017133.

Grant A, Dean S, Hay-Smith J, Hagen S, McClurg D, Taylor A, Kovandzic M, Bugge C. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL (Optimising Pelvic Floor Exercises to Achieve Long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024152.

Hagen S, McClurg D, Bugge C, Hay-Smith J, Dean SG, Elders A, Glazener C, Abdel-fattah M, Agur WI, Booth J, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024153.

Steckler A, Linnan L. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research; 2002.

Durlak JA. Why programme implementation is so important. J Prev Intervent Commun. 1998;17(2):5–18.

Bonell C, Oakley A, Hargreaves J, VS, Rees R. Assessment of generalisability in trials of health interventions: suggested framework and systematic review. Br Med J. 2006;333(7563):346–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14(1):15.

Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Publications; 2003.

Bugge C, Hay-Smith J, Grant A, Taylor A, Hagen S, McClurg D, Dean S: A 24 month longitudinal qualitative study of women’s experience of electromyography biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and PFMT alone for urinary incontinence: adherence, outcome and context. ICS Gothenburg 2019 2019. https://www.ics.org/2019/abstract/473 . Access 10.9.2020.

Suzanne Hagen, Andrew Elders, Susan Stratton, Nicole Sergenson, Carol Bugge, Sarah Dean, Jean Hay-Smith, Mary Kilonzo, Maria Dimitrova, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Wael Agur, Jo Booth, Cathryn Glazener, Karen Guerrero, Alison McDonald, John Norrie, Louise R Williams, Doreen McClurg. Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training with and without electromyographic biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women: multicentre randomised controlled trial BMJ 2020;371. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3719 .

Cook TD. Emergent principles for the design, implementation, and analysis of cluster-based experiments in social science. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2005;599(1):176–98.

Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Br Med J. 2014;348.

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? Br Med J. 2004;328(7455):1561–3.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Treweek S, Guthrie B. Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care. Trials. 2012;13:154.

Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.

Thorne S. The great saturation debate: what the “S word” means and doesn’t mean in qualitative research reporting. Can J Nurs Res. 2020;52(1):3–5.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(3):228–38.

Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework: a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;4:297-304.

Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):103.

Cresswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd; 2007.

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.

Craig P, Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, White M. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research: National Institute for Health Research; 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK498645/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK498645.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Shaun Treweek for the discussions about context in trials.

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Practice, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7QB, UK

Aileen Grant

Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Pathfoot Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

Carol Bugge

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Campus, London, W6 8RP, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AG, CB and MW conceptualised the study. AG wrote the paper. CB and MW commented on the drafts. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aileen Grant .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval and consent to participate is not appropriate as no participants were included.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is not required as no participants were included.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Grant, A., Bugge, C. & Wells, M. Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials. Trials 21 , 982 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04880-4

Download citation

Received : 09 April 2020

Accepted : 06 November 2020

Published : 27 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04880-4

Share this article

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

• Process evaluation
• Case study design

ISSN: 1745-6215

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on June 22, 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 sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

A faster, more affordable way to improve your paper

Scribbr’s new AI Proofreader checks your document and corrects spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes with near-human accuracy and the efficiency of AI!

Proofread my paper

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, June 22). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Open Access
• Published: 10 November 2020

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges

• Sara Paparini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1909-2481 1 ,
• Judith Green 2 ,
• Chrysanthi Papoutsi 1 ,
• Jamie Murdoch 3 ,
• Mark Petticrew 4 ,
• Trish Greenhalgh 1 ,
• Benjamin Hanckel 5 &
• Sara Shaw 1  

BMC Medicine volume  18 , Article number:  301 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

29 Citations

38 Altmetric

Metrics details

The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear.

Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports.

Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

Peer Review reports

The need for methodological development to address the most urgent challenges in health research has been well-documented. Many of the most pressing questions for public health research, where the focus is on system-level determinants [ 1 , 2 ], and for health services research, where provisions typically vary across sites and are provided through interlocking networks of services [ 3 ], require methodological approaches that can attend to complexity. The need for methodological advance has arisen, in part, as a result of the diminishing returns from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where they have been used to answer questions about the effects of interventions in complex systems [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In conditions of complexity, there is limited value in maintaining the current orientation to experimental trial designs in the health sciences as providing ‘gold standard’ evidence of effect.

There are increasing calls for methodological pluralism [ 7 , 8 ], with the recognition that complex intervention and context are not easily or usefully separated (as is often the situation when using trial design), and that system interruptions may have effects that are not reducible to linear causal pathways between intervention and outcome. These calls are reflected in a shifting and contested discourse of trial design, seen with the emergence of realist [ 9 ], adaptive and hybrid (types 1, 2 and 3) [ 10 , 11 ] trials that blend studies of effectiveness with a close consideration of the contexts of implementation. Similarly, process evaluation has now become a core component of complex healthcare intervention trials, reflected in MRC guidance on how to explore implementation, causal mechanisms and context [ 12 ].

Evidence about the context of an intervention is crucial for questions of external validity. As Woolcock [ 4 ] notes, even if RCT designs are accepted as robust for maximising internal validity, questions of transferability (how well the intervention works in different contexts) and generalisability (how well the intervention can be scaled up) remain unanswered [ 5 , 13 ]. For research evidence to have impact on policy and systems organisation, and thus to improve population and patient health, there is an urgent need for better methods for strengthening external validity, including a better understanding of the relationship between intervention and context [ 14 ].

Policymakers, healthcare commissioners and other research users require credible evidence of relevance to their settings and populations [ 15 ], to perform what Rosengarten and Savransky [ 16 ] call ‘careful abstraction’ to the locales that matter for them. They also require robust evidence for understanding complex causal pathways. Case study research, currently under-utilised in public health and health services evaluation, can offer considerable potential for strengthening faith in both external and internal validity. For example, in an empirical case study of how the policy of free bus travel had specific health effects in London, UK, a quasi-experimental evaluation (led by JG) identified how important aspects of context (a good public transport system) and intervention (that it was universal) were necessary conditions for the observed effects, thus providing useful, actionable evidence for decision-makers in other contexts [ 17 ].

The overall approach of case study research is based on the in-depth exploration of complex phenomena in their natural, or ‘real-life’, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges rather than restricting the focus on narrow problem delineations and simple fixes. Case study research is a diverse and somewhat contested field, with multiple definitions and perspectives grounded in different ways of viewing the world, and involving different combinations of methods. In this paper, we raise awareness of such plurality and highlight the contribution that case study research can make to the evaluation of complex system-level interventions. We review some of the challenges in exploiting the current evidence base from empirical case studies and conclude by recommending that further guidance and minimum reporting criteria for evaluation using case studies, appropriate for audiences in the health sciences, can enhance the take-up of evidence from case study research.

Case study research offers evidence about context, causal inference in complex systems and implementation

Well-conducted and described empirical case studies provide evidence on context, complexity and mechanisms for understanding how, where and why interventions have their observed effects. Recognition of the importance of context for understanding the relationships between interventions and outcomes is hardly new. In 1943, Canguilhem berated an over-reliance on experimental designs for determining universal physiological laws: ‘As if one could determine a phenomenon’s essence apart from its conditions! As if conditions were a mask or frame which changed neither the face nor the picture!’ ([ 18 ] p126). More recently, a concern with context has been expressed in health systems and public health research as part of what has been called the ‘complexity turn’ [ 1 ]: a recognition that many of the most enduring challenges for developing an evidence base require a consideration of system-level effects [ 1 ] and the conceptualisation of interventions as interruptions in systems [ 19 ].

The case study approach is widely recognised as offering an invaluable resource for understanding the dynamic and evolving influence of context on complex, system-level interventions [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Empirically, case studies can directly inform assessments of where, when, how and for whom interventions might be successfully implemented, by helping to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions under which interventions might have effects and to consolidate learning on how interdependencies, emergence and unpredictability can be managed to achieve and sustain desired effects. Case study research has the potential to address four objectives for improving research and reporting of context recently set out by guidance on taking account of context in population health research [ 24 ], that is to (1) improve the appropriateness of intervention development for specific contexts, (2) improve understanding of ‘how’ interventions work, (3) better understand how and why impacts vary across contexts and (4) ensure reports of intervention studies are most useful for decision-makers and researchers.

However, evaluations of complex healthcare interventions have arguably not exploited the full potential of case study research and can learn much from other disciplines. For evaluative research, exploratory case studies have had a traditional role of providing data on ‘process’, or initial ‘hypothesis-generating’ scoping, but might also have an increasing salience for explanatory aims. Across the social and political sciences, different kinds of case studies are undertaken to meet diverse aims (description, exploration or explanation) and across different scales (from small N qualitative studies that aim to elucidate processes, or provide thick description, to more systematic techniques designed for medium-to-large N cases).

Case studies with explanatory aims vary in terms of their positioning within mixed-methods projects, with designs including (but not restricted to) (1) single N of 1 studies of interventions in specific contexts, where the overall design is a case study that may incorporate one or more (randomised or not) comparisons over time and between variables within the case; (2) a series of cases conducted or synthesised to provide explanation from variations between cases; and (3) case studies of particular settings within RCT or quasi-experimental designs to explore variation in effects or implementation.

Detailed qualitative research (typically done as ‘case studies’ within process evaluations) provides evidence for the plausibility of mechanisms [ 25 ], offering theoretical generalisations for how interventions may function under different conditions. Although RCT designs reduce many threats to internal validity, the mechanisms of effect remain opaque, particularly when the causal pathways between ‘intervention’ and ‘effect’ are long and potentially non-linear: case study research has a more fundamental role here, in providing detailed observational evidence for causal claims [ 26 ] as well as producing a rich, nuanced picture of tensions and multiple perspectives [ 8 ].

Longitudinal or cross-case analysis may be best suited for evidence generation in system-level evaluative research. Turner [ 27 ], for instance, reflecting on the complex processes in major system change, has argued for the need for methods that integrate learning across cases, to develop theoretical knowledge that would enable inferences beyond the single case, and to develop generalisable theory about organisational and structural change in health systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) [ 28 ] is one such formal method for deriving causal claims, using set theory mathematics to integrate data from empirical case studies to answer questions about the configurations of causal pathways linking conditions to outcomes [ 29 , 30 ].

Nonetheless, the single N case study, too, provides opportunities for theoretical development [ 31 ], and theoretical generalisation or analytical refinement [ 32 ]. How ‘the case’ and ‘context’ are conceptualised is crucial here. Findings from the single case may seem to be confined to its intrinsic particularities in a specific and distinct context [ 33 ]. However, if such context is viewed as exemplifying wider social and political forces, the single case can be ‘telling’, rather than ‘typical’, and offer insight into a wider issue [ 34 ]. Internal comparisons within the case can offer rich possibilities for logical inferences about causation [ 17 ]. Further, case studies of any size can be used for theory testing through refutation [ 22 ]. The potential lies, then, in utilising the strengths and plurality of case study to support theory-driven research within different methodological paradigms.

Evaluation research in health has much to learn from a range of social sciences where case study methodology has been used to develop various kinds of causal inference. For instance, Gerring [ 35 ] expands on the within-case variations utilised to make causal claims. For Gerring [ 35 ], case studies come into their own with regard to invariant or strong causal claims (such as X is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for Y) rather than for probabilistic causal claims. For the latter (where experimental methods might have an advantage in estimating effect sizes), case studies offer evidence on mechanisms: from observations of X affecting Y, from process tracing or from pattern matching. Case studies also support the study of emergent causation, that is, the multiple interacting properties that account for particular and unexpected outcomes in complex systems, such as in healthcare [ 8 ].

Finally, efficacy (or beliefs about efficacy) is not the only contributor to intervention uptake, with a range of organisational and policy contingencies affecting whether an intervention is likely to be rolled out in practice. Case study research is, therefore, invaluable for learning about contextual contingencies and identifying the conditions necessary for interventions to become normalised (i.e. implemented routinely) in practice [ 36 ].

The challenges in exploiting evidence from case study research

At present, there are significant challenges in exploiting the benefits of case study research in evaluative health research, which relate to status, definition and reporting. Case study research has been marginalised at the bottom of an evidence hierarchy, seen to offer little by way of explanatory power, if nonetheless useful for adding descriptive data on process or providing useful illustrations for policymakers [ 37 ]. This is an opportune moment to revisit this low status. As health researchers are increasingly charged with evaluating ‘natural experiments’—the use of face masks in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic being a recent example [ 38 ]—rather than interventions that take place in settings that can be controlled, research approaches using methods to strengthen causal inference that does not require randomisation become more relevant.

A second challenge for improving the use of case study evidence in evaluative health research is that, as we have seen, what is meant by ‘case study’ varies widely, not only across but also within disciplines. There is indeed little consensus amongst methodologists as to how to define ‘a case study’. Definitions focus, variously, on small sample size or lack of control over the intervention (e.g. [ 39 ] p194), on in-depth study and context [ 40 , 41 ], on the logic of inference used [ 35 ] or on distinct research strategies which incorporate a number of methods to address questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ [ 42 ]. Moreover, definitions developed for specific disciplines do not capture the range of ways in which case study research is carried out across disciplines. Multiple definitions of case study reflect the richness and diversity of the approach. However, evidence suggests that a lack of consensus across methodologists results in some of the limitations of published reports of empirical case studies [ 43 , 44 ]. Hyett and colleagues [ 43 ], for instance, reviewing reports in qualitative journals, found little match between methodological definitions of case study research and how authors used the term.

This raises the third challenge we identify that case study reports are typically not written in ways that are accessible or useful for the evaluation research community and policymakers. Case studies may not appear in journals widely read by those in the health sciences, either because space constraints preclude the reporting of rich, thick descriptions, or because of the reported lack of willingness of some biomedical journals to publish research that uses qualitative methods [ 45 ], signalling the persistence of the aforementioned evidence hierarchy. Where they do, however, the term ‘case study’ is used to indicate, interchangeably, a qualitative study, an N of 1 sample, or a multi-method, in-depth analysis of one example from a population of phenomena. Definitions of what constitutes the ‘case’ are frequently lacking and appear to be used as a synonym for the settings in which the research is conducted. Despite offering insights for evaluation, the primary aims may not have been evaluative, so the implications may not be explicitly drawn out. Indeed, some case study reports might properly be aiming for thick description without necessarily seeking to inform about context or causality.

Acknowledging plurality and developing guidance

We recognise that definitional and methodological plurality is not only inevitable, but also a necessary and creative reflection of the very different epistemological and disciplinary origins of health researchers, and the aims they have in doing and reporting case study research. Indeed, to provide some clarity, Thomas [ 46 ] has suggested a typology of subject/purpose/approach/process for classifying aims (e.g. evaluative or exploratory), sample rationale and selection and methods for data generation of case studies. We also recognise that the diversity of methods used in case study research, and the necessary focus on narrative reporting, does not lend itself to straightforward development of formal quality or reporting criteria.

Existing checklists for reporting case study research from the social sciences—for example Lincoln and Guba’s [ 47 ] and Stake’s [ 33 ]—are primarily orientated to the quality of narrative produced, and the extent to which they encapsulate thick description, rather than the more pragmatic issues of implications for intervention effects. Those designed for clinical settings, such as the CARE (CAse REports) guidelines, provide specific reporting guidelines for medical case reports about single, or small groups of patients [ 48 ], not for case study research.

The Design of Case Study Research in Health Care (DESCARTE) model [ 44 ] suggests a series of questions to be asked of a case study researcher (including clarity about the philosophy underpinning their research), study design (with a focus on case definition) and analysis (to improve process). The model resembles toolkits for enhancing the quality and robustness of qualitative and mixed-methods research reporting, and it is usefully open-ended and non-prescriptive. However, even if it does include some reflections on context, the model does not fully address aspects of context, logic and causal inference that are perhaps most relevant for evaluative research in health.

Hence, for evaluative research where the aim is to report empirical findings in ways that are intended to be pragmatically useful for health policy and practice, this may be an opportune time to consider how to best navigate plurality around what is (minimally) important to report when publishing empirical case studies, especially with regards to the complex relationships between context and interventions, information that case study research is well placed to provide.

The conventional scientific quest for certainty, predictability and linear causality (maximised in RCT designs) has to be augmented by the study of uncertainty, unpredictability and emergent causality [ 8 ] in complex systems. This will require methodological pluralism, and openness to broadening the evidence base to better understand both causality in and the transferability of system change intervention [ 14 , 20 , 23 , 25 ]. Case study research evidence is essential, yet is currently under exploited in the health sciences. If evaluative health research is to move beyond the current impasse on methods for understanding interventions as interruptions in complex systems, we need to consider in more detail how researchers can conduct and report empirical case studies which do aim to elucidate the contextual factors which interact with interventions to produce particular effects. To this end, supported by the UK’s Medical Research Council, we are embracing the challenge to develop guidance for case study researchers studying complex interventions. Following a meta-narrative review of the literature, we are planning a Delphi study to inform guidance that will, at minimum, cover the value of case study research for evaluating the interrelationship between context and complex system-level interventions; for situating and defining ‘the case’, and generalising from case studies; as well as provide specific guidance on conducting, analysing and reporting case study research. Our hope is that such guidance can support researchers evaluating interventions in complex systems to better exploit the diversity and richness of case study research.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable (article based on existing available academic publications)

Abbreviations

Qualitative comparative analysis

Quasi-experimental design

Randomised controlled trial

Diez Roux AV. Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1627–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ogilvie D, Mitchell R, Mutrie N, M P, Platt S. Evaluating health effects of transport interventions: methodologic case study. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:118–126.

Walshe C. The evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care: an exploration of the potential of case study research strategies. Palliat Med. 2011;25(8):774–81.

Woolcock M. Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation. 2013;19:229–48.

Cartwright N. Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties. 2007;2(1):11–20.

Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.

Salway S, Green J. Towards a critical complex systems approach to public health. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):523–4.

Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.

Bonell C, Warren E, Fletcher A. Realist trials and the testing of context-mechanism-outcome configurations: a response to Van Belle et al. Trials. 2016;17:478.

Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16:29.

Curran G, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne J, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 .

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015 [cited 2020 Jun 27];350. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1258 .

Evans RE, Craig P, Hoddinott P, Littlecott H, Moore L, Murphy S, et al. When and how do ‘effective’ interventions need to be adapted and/or re-evaluated in new contexts? The need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(6):481–2.

Shoveller J. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(5):487–500.

Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):37.

Rosengarten M, Savransky M. A careful biomedicine? Generalization and abstraction in RCTs. Crit Public Health. 2019;29(2):181–91.

Green J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Steinbach R, Goodman A, Jones A, et al. Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: a case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):391–406.

Canguilhem G. The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books; 1991. (1949).

Google Scholar  

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.

King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research: Princeton University Press; 1994.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.

Yin R. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1209.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016 [cited 2020 Jun 30];4(16). Available from: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr04160#/abstract .

Craig P, Di Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, E M, White M, Group CCGA. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2018.

Grant RL, Hood R. Complex systems, explanation and policy: implications of the crisis of replication for public health research. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):525–32.

Mahoney J. Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociol Methods Res. 2000;4:387–424.

Turner S. Major system change: a management and organisational research perspective. In: Rosalind Raine, Ray Fitzpatrick, Helen Barratt, Gywn Bevan, Nick Black, Ruth Boaden, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) 2016. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04160.

Ragin CC. Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1225.

Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Thomas J, Green J. Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):252.

Schneider CQ, Wagemann C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 369 p.

Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12:219–45.

Tsoukas H. Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. Sage Handb Organ Res Methods. 2009:285–301.

Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.

Mitchell JC. Typicality and the case study. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. Vol. 238241. 1984.

Gerring J. What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(2):341–54.

May C, Mort M, Williams T, F M, Gask L. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697–710.

McGill E. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):007053.

Greenhalgh T. We can’t be 100% sure face masks work – but that shouldn’t stop us wearing them | Trish Greenhalgh. The Guardian. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 27]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/face-masks-coronavirus .

Hammersley M. So, what are case studies? In: What’s wrong with ethnography? New York: Routledge; 1992.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):100.

Luck L, Jackson D, Usher K. Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nurs Inq. 2006;13(2):103–9.

Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods: Sage; 2017.

Hyett N, A K, Dickson-Swift V. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2014;9:23606.

Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.

Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. Bmj. 2016;352.

Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual Inq. 2011;17(6):511–21.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Judging the quality of case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 1990;3(1):53–9.

Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This work was funded by the Medical Research Council - MRC Award MR/S014632/1 HCS: Case study, Context and Complex interventions (TRIPLE C). SP was additionally funded by the University of Oxford's Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Sara Paparini, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Trish Greenhalgh & Sara Shaw

Wellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Judith Green

School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Jamie Murdoch

Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicin, London, UK

Mark Petticrew

Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

Benjamin Hanckel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JG, MP, SP, JM, TG, CP and SS drafted the initial paper; all authors contributed to the drafting of the final version, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Paparini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paparini, S., Green, J., Papoutsi, C. et al. Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges. BMC Med 18 , 301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2020

Accepted : 07 September 2020

Published : 10 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6

Share this article

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

• Qualitative
• Case studies
• Mixed-method
• Public health
• Health services research
• Interventions

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Qualitative Research:...

Qualitative Research: Case study evaluation

• Related content
• Peer review
• Justin Keen , research fellow, health economics research group a ,
• Tim Packwood a
• Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH
• a Correspondence to: Dr Keen.

Case study evaluations, using one or more qualitative methods, have been used to investigate important practical and policy questions in health care. This paper describes the features of a well designed case study and gives examples showing how qualitative methods are used in evaluations of health services and health policy.

This is the last in a series of seven articles describing non-quantitative techniques and showing their value in health research

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Introduction

The medical approach to understanding disease has traditionally drawn heavily on qualitative data, and in particular on case studies to illustrate important or interesting phenomena. The tradition continues today, not least in regular case reports in this and other medical journals. Moreover, much of the everyday work of doctors and other health professionals still involves decisions that are qualitative rather than quantitative in nature.

This paper discusses the use of qualitative research methods, not in clinical care but in case study evaluations of health service interventions. It is useful for doctors to understand the principles guiding the design and conduct of these evaluations, because they are frequently used by both researchers and inspectorial agencies (such as the Audit Commission in the United Kingdom and the Office of Technology Assessment in the United States) to investigate the work of doctors and other health professionals.

We briefly discuss the circumstances in which case study research can usefully be undertaken in health service settings and the ways in which qualitative methods are used within case studies. Examples show how qualitative methods are applied, both in purely qualitative studies and alongside quantitative methods.

Case study evaluations

Doctors often find themselves asking important practical questions, such as should we be involved in the management of hospitals and, if so, how? how will new government policies affect the lives of our patients? and how can we cope with changes in practice in our local setting? There are, broadly, two ways in which such questions can usefully be addressed. One is to analyse the proposed policies themselves, by investigating whether they are internally consistent and by using theoretical frameworks to predict their effects on the ground. National policies, including the implementation of the NHS internal market 1 and the new community care arrangements 2 have been examined in this way by using economic theory to analyse their likely consequences.

The other approach, and the focus of this article, is to study implementation empirically. Empirical evaluative studies are concerned with placing a value on an intervention or policy change, and they typically involve forming judgments, firstly about the appropriateness of an intervention for those concerned (and often by implication also for the NHS as a whole) and, secondly about whether the outputs and outcomes of interventions are justified by their inputs and processes.

Case study evaluations are valuable where broad, complex questions have to be addressed in complex circumstances. No one method is sufficient to capture all salient aspects of an intervention, and case studies typically use multiple methods.

The methods used in case studies may be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the circumstances. Case studies using qualitative methods are most valuable when the question being posed requires an investigation of a real life intervention in detail, where the focus is on how and why the intervention succeeds or fails, where the general context will influence the outcome and where researchers asking the questions will have no control over events. As a result, the number of relevant variables will be far greater than can be controlled for, so that experimental approaches are simply not appropriate.

Other conditions that enhance the value of the case study approach concern the nature of the intervention being investigated. Often an intervention is ill defined, at least at the outset, and so cannot easily be distinguished from the general environment. Even where it is well defined, an intervention may not be discrete but consist of a complex mix of changes that occur over different timescales. This is a pervasive problem in health services in many countries, which are experiencing many parallel and interrelated changes. The doctor weighing up whether or how to become involved in hospital management would have to assess the various impacts on the managerial role of clinical audit, resource management, consultant job plans, and a raft of government legislation. Secondly, any intervention will typically depend for its success on the involvement of several different interested groups. Each group may have a legitimate, but different, interpretation of events; capturing these different views is often best achieved by using interviews or other qualitative methods within a case study design. Thirdly, it is not clear at the outset whether an intervention will be fully implemented by the end of a study period--accounts of major computer system failures show this. 3 Yet study of these failures may provide invaluable clues for future success.

Taken together, these conditions exclude experimental approaches to evaluation. The case study is an alternative approach--in effect, a different way of thinking about complex situations which takes the conditions into account, but is nevertheless rigorous and facilitates informed judgments about success or failure.

The design of case studies

As noted earlier, case studies using qualitative methods are used by bodies that inspect and regulate public services. Examples include the work of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission 4 in the United Kingdom and the Office of Technology Assessment in the United States. 5 Sometimes these studies are retrospective, particularly in investigations of failed implementations of policies. Increasingly, though, these bodies use prospective studies designed to investigate the extent to which centrally determined standards or initiatives have been implemented. For example, the National Audit Office recently examined hospital catering in England, focusing on the existence of, and monitoring of, standards as required by the citizen's charter and on the application of central policy and guidance in the areas of nutritional standards and cost control. 6

Prospective studies have also been used by academic researchers, for example, to evaluate the introduction of general management 7 in Britain after the Griffiths report, 8 in the studies of specific changes following the 1989 NHS review 9 which were commissioned by the King's Fund, 10 and in the introduction of total quality management in hospitals in the United States. 11 In these cases the investigators were interested in understanding what happened in a complex environment where they had no control over events. Their research questions emerged from widespread concerns about the implications of new policies or management theories, and were investigated with the most appropriate methods at their disposal.

THE NATURE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Once a broad research question has been identified, there are two approaches to the design of case study research, with appropriateness depending on the circumstances. In the first approach, precise questions are posed at the outset of the research and data collection and analysis are directed towards answering them. These studies are typically constructed to allow comparisons to be drawn. 12 The comparison may be between different approaches to implementation, or a comparison between sites where an intervention is taking place and ones where normal practice prevails.

An example is the recent study by Glennerster et al of the implementation of general practitioner fundholding. 13 Starting with a broad question about the value of general practitioner fundholding, the researchers narrowed down to precise questions about the extent to which the fundholding scheme promoted efficiency and preserved equity. They used one qualitative method, semistructured interviews, with the general practitioners and practice managers and also with people responsible for implementing the policy at national and regional level. The interviews were complemented by the collection of quantitative data such as financial information from the practices (box 1).

Box 1 Outline of case study of GPfundholding 13

Mix of qualitative and quantitative methods

Fundholding and non-fundholding practices

Programme of interviews with key staff at practices

Interviews with people responsible for imple-menting national policy

Study found that the general practitioner fund-holding scheme was achieving the aims set for it bygovernment and that adverse selection (“creamskimming”) of patients was less likely than some commentators had feared

The second approach is more open and in effect starts by asking broad questions such as what is happening here? and, what are the important features and relationships that explain the impact of this intervention? These questions are then refined and become more specific in the course of fieldwork and a parallel process of data analysis. This type of design, in which the eventual research questions emerge during the research, is termed ethnography and has been advocated for use in the study of the impact of government policies in the health system. 14 15 In some ways it is similar to the way in which consultations are conducted in that it involves initial exploration, progressing over time towards a diagnosis inferred from the available data.

The evaluation of resource management in the NHS, 16 which investigated the progress of six pilot hospitals in implementing new management arrangements, focused particularly on identifying ways in which doctors and general managers could jointly control the allocation and commitment of resources (box 2). At the outset the nature of resource management was unclear--sites were charged with finding ways of involving doctors in management, but how this would be achieved and, if achieved, how successful it would be in improving patient care were open questions. The researchers selected major specialties within each site and conducted interviews with relevant staff, observed meetings, and analysed documentation. Over time, the data were used to develop a framework which captured the essential features of resource management at the time and which was used to evaluate each site's progress in implementing it.

Box 2 Evaluation of resourcemanagement 16

Six hospitals, a mix of teaching and non-teaching

Focus on major specialties: general surgery and general medicine

Methods and data sources independent of each other

Qualitative methods included interviews, non-participant observation of meetings, analysis of documentation

Evaluation found that there were important changes in management processes, but little evidence of improvement in patient care

SELECTION OF SITES

The process of selecting sites for study is central to the case study approach. Researchers have developed a number of selection strategies, the objectives of which, as in any good research study, are to ensure that misinterpretation of results is as far as possible avoided. Criteria include the selection of cases that are typical of the phenomenon being investigated, those in which a specific theory can be tested, or those that will confirm or refute a hypothesis.

Researchers will benefit from expert advice from those with knowledge of the subject being investigated, and they can usefully build into the initial research design the possibility of testing findings at further sites. Replication of results across sites helps to ensure that findings are not due to characteristics of particular sites; hence it increases external validity. 17

SELECTION OF METHODS

The next step is to select research methods, the process being driven by criteria of validity and reliability. 18 A distinctive but not unique feature of case study research is the use of multiple methods and sources of evidence to establish construct validity. The use of particular methods is discussed in other papers in this series; the validity and reliability of individual methods is discussed in more detail by Mays and Pope. 19

Case studies often use triangulation 20 to ensure the validity of findings. In triangulation all data items are corroborated from at least one other source and normally by another method of data collection. The fundholding study referred to earlier 13 used interviews in combination with several different quantitative sources of data to establish an overall picture. The evaluation of resource management, in contrast, used a wider range of qualitative and quantitative methods. 16

Case studies are used by bodiesthat inspect public services--to monitor standards in hospital catering, for example

Any one of these methods by itself might have produced results of weak validity, but the different methods were used to obtain data from different sources. When they all suggested the emergence of an important development, therefore, they acted to strengthen the researchers' belief in the validity of their observations.

Another technique is to construct chains of evidence; these are conceptual arguments that link phenomena to one another in the following manner: “if this occurs then some other thing would be expected to occur; and if not, then it would not be expected.” For example, if quantitative evidence suggested that there had been an increase or decrease in admission rates in several specialties within a resource management site and if an interview programme revealed that the involvement of doctors in management (if developed as part of the resource management initiative) had led to a higher level of coordination of admissions policies, then this is evidence that resource management may facilitate the introduction of such policies. This type of argument is not always appropriate, but it can be valuable where it is important to investigate causation in complex environments.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS

The collection of data should be directed towards the development of an analytical framework that will facilitate interpretation of findings. Again, there are several ways in which this might be done. In the study of fundholding 13 the data were organised to “test” hypotheses which were derived from pre-existing economic theories. In the case of resource management there was no obvious pre-existing theory that could be used; the development of a framework during the study was crucial to help organise and evaluate the data collected. The framework was not imposed on the data but derived from it in an iterative process over the course of the evaluation; each was used to refine the other over time (box 3). 15

Framework: five interrelated elements of resource management 16

The target should be a reduction in the consumption itself

Commitment to resource management by the relevant personnel at each level in the organisation

Devolution of authority for the management ofresources

Collaboration within and between disciplines insecuring the objectives of resource management

Management infrastructure, particularly in termsof organisational structure and provision of information

A clear focus for the local resource management strategy

The investigator is finally left with the difficult task of making a judgment about the findings of a study. The purpose of the steps in designing and building the case study research is to maximise confidence in the findings, but interpretation inevitably involves value judgments. The findings may well include divergences of opinion among those involved about the value of the intervention, and the results will often point towards different conclusions.

The extent to which research findings can be assembled into a single coherent account of events varies widely. In some circumstances widely differing opinions are themselves very important and should be reflected in any report. Where an evaluation is designed to inform policy making, however, some attempt has to be made at an overall judgment of success or failure; this was the case in the evaluation of resource management, where it was important to indicate to policy makers and the NHS whether it was worth while.

The complexity of the issues that health professionals have to deal with and the increasing recognition by policy makers, academics, and practitioners of the value of case studies in evaluating health service interventions suggest that the use of such studies is likely to increase in the future. Qualitative methods can be used within case study designs to address many practical and policy questions that impinge on the lives of professionals, particularly where those questions are concerned with how or why events take a particular course.

• Committee of Public Accounts
• Audit Commission
• Office of Technology Assessment
• National Audit Office
• Pollitt C ,
• Harrison S ,
• Griffiths R
• Secretaries of State
• Robinson R ,
• Berwick D ,
• Godfrey AB ,
• St Leger A ,
• Schneider H ,
• Walsworth-Bell J
• Glennerster H ,
• Matsaganis M ,
• Packwood T ,

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges

Sara paparini.

1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Judith Green

2 Wellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Jamie murdoch.

3 School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Mark Petticrew

4 Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicin, London, UK

Trish Greenhalgh

Benjamin hanckel.

5 Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

Associated Data

Not applicable (article based on existing available academic publications)

The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear.

Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports.

Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

The need for methodological development to address the most urgent challenges in health research has been well-documented. Many of the most pressing questions for public health research, where the focus is on system-level determinants [ 1 , 2 ], and for health services research, where provisions typically vary across sites and are provided through interlocking networks of services [ 3 ], require methodological approaches that can attend to complexity. The need for methodological advance has arisen, in part, as a result of the diminishing returns from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where they have been used to answer questions about the effects of interventions in complex systems [ 4 – 6 ]. In conditions of complexity, there is limited value in maintaining the current orientation to experimental trial designs in the health sciences as providing ‘gold standard’ evidence of effect.

There are increasing calls for methodological pluralism [ 7 , 8 ], with the recognition that complex intervention and context are not easily or usefully separated (as is often the situation when using trial design), and that system interruptions may have effects that are not reducible to linear causal pathways between intervention and outcome. These calls are reflected in a shifting and contested discourse of trial design, seen with the emergence of realist [ 9 ], adaptive and hybrid (types 1, 2 and 3) [ 10 , 11 ] trials that blend studies of effectiveness with a close consideration of the contexts of implementation. Similarly, process evaluation has now become a core component of complex healthcare intervention trials, reflected in MRC guidance on how to explore implementation, causal mechanisms and context [ 12 ].

Evidence about the context of an intervention is crucial for questions of external validity. As Woolcock [ 4 ] notes, even if RCT designs are accepted as robust for maximising internal validity, questions of transferability (how well the intervention works in different contexts) and generalisability (how well the intervention can be scaled up) remain unanswered [ 5 , 13 ]. For research evidence to have impact on policy and systems organisation, and thus to improve population and patient health, there is an urgent need for better methods for strengthening external validity, including a better understanding of the relationship between intervention and context [ 14 ].

Policymakers, healthcare commissioners and other research users require credible evidence of relevance to their settings and populations [ 15 ], to perform what Rosengarten and Savransky [ 16 ] call ‘careful abstraction’ to the locales that matter for them. They also require robust evidence for understanding complex causal pathways. Case study research, currently under-utilised in public health and health services evaluation, can offer considerable potential for strengthening faith in both external and internal validity. For example, in an empirical case study of how the policy of free bus travel had specific health effects in London, UK, a quasi-experimental evaluation (led by JG) identified how important aspects of context (a good public transport system) and intervention (that it was universal) were necessary conditions for the observed effects, thus providing useful, actionable evidence for decision-makers in other contexts [ 17 ].

The overall approach of case study research is based on the in-depth exploration of complex phenomena in their natural, or ‘real-life’, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges rather than restricting the focus on narrow problem delineations and simple fixes. Case study research is a diverse and somewhat contested field, with multiple definitions and perspectives grounded in different ways of viewing the world, and involving different combinations of methods. In this paper, we raise awareness of such plurality and highlight the contribution that case study research can make to the evaluation of complex system-level interventions. We review some of the challenges in exploiting the current evidence base from empirical case studies and conclude by recommending that further guidance and minimum reporting criteria for evaluation using case studies, appropriate for audiences in the health sciences, can enhance the take-up of evidence from case study research.

Case study research offers evidence about context, causal inference in complex systems and implementation

Well-conducted and described empirical case studies provide evidence on context, complexity and mechanisms for understanding how, where and why interventions have their observed effects. Recognition of the importance of context for understanding the relationships between interventions and outcomes is hardly new. In 1943, Canguilhem berated an over-reliance on experimental designs for determining universal physiological laws: ‘As if one could determine a phenomenon’s essence apart from its conditions! As if conditions were a mask or frame which changed neither the face nor the picture!’ ([ 18 ] p126). More recently, a concern with context has been expressed in health systems and public health research as part of what has been called the ‘complexity turn’ [ 1 ]: a recognition that many of the most enduring challenges for developing an evidence base require a consideration of system-level effects [ 1 ] and the conceptualisation of interventions as interruptions in systems [ 19 ].

The case study approach is widely recognised as offering an invaluable resource for understanding the dynamic and evolving influence of context on complex, system-level interventions [ 20 – 23 ]. Empirically, case studies can directly inform assessments of where, when, how and for whom interventions might be successfully implemented, by helping to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions under which interventions might have effects and to consolidate learning on how interdependencies, emergence and unpredictability can be managed to achieve and sustain desired effects. Case study research has the potential to address four objectives for improving research and reporting of context recently set out by guidance on taking account of context in population health research [ 24 ], that is to (1) improve the appropriateness of intervention development for specific contexts, (2) improve understanding of ‘how’ interventions work, (3) better understand how and why impacts vary across contexts and (4) ensure reports of intervention studies are most useful for decision-makers and researchers.

However, evaluations of complex healthcare interventions have arguably not exploited the full potential of case study research and can learn much from other disciplines. For evaluative research, exploratory case studies have had a traditional role of providing data on ‘process’, or initial ‘hypothesis-generating’ scoping, but might also have an increasing salience for explanatory aims. Across the social and political sciences, different kinds of case studies are undertaken to meet diverse aims (description, exploration or explanation) and across different scales (from small N qualitative studies that aim to elucidate processes, or provide thick description, to more systematic techniques designed for medium-to-large N cases).

Case studies with explanatory aims vary in terms of their positioning within mixed-methods projects, with designs including (but not restricted to) (1) single N of 1 studies of interventions in specific contexts, where the overall design is a case study that may incorporate one or more (randomised or not) comparisons over time and between variables within the case; (2) a series of cases conducted or synthesised to provide explanation from variations between cases; and (3) case studies of particular settings within RCT or quasi-experimental designs to explore variation in effects or implementation.

Detailed qualitative research (typically done as ‘case studies’ within process evaluations) provides evidence for the plausibility of mechanisms [ 25 ], offering theoretical generalisations for how interventions may function under different conditions. Although RCT designs reduce many threats to internal validity, the mechanisms of effect remain opaque, particularly when the causal pathways between ‘intervention’ and ‘effect’ are long and potentially non-linear: case study research has a more fundamental role here, in providing detailed observational evidence for causal claims [ 26 ] as well as producing a rich, nuanced picture of tensions and multiple perspectives [ 8 ].

Longitudinal or cross-case analysis may be best suited for evidence generation in system-level evaluative research. Turner [ 27 ], for instance, reflecting on the complex processes in major system change, has argued for the need for methods that integrate learning across cases, to develop theoretical knowledge that would enable inferences beyond the single case, and to develop generalisable theory about organisational and structural change in health systems. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) [ 28 ] is one such formal method for deriving causal claims, using set theory mathematics to integrate data from empirical case studies to answer questions about the configurations of causal pathways linking conditions to outcomes [ 29 , 30 ].

Nonetheless, the single N case study, too, provides opportunities for theoretical development [ 31 ], and theoretical generalisation or analytical refinement [ 32 ]. How ‘the case’ and ‘context’ are conceptualised is crucial here. Findings from the single case may seem to be confined to its intrinsic particularities in a specific and distinct context [ 33 ]. However, if such context is viewed as exemplifying wider social and political forces, the single case can be ‘telling’, rather than ‘typical’, and offer insight into a wider issue [ 34 ]. Internal comparisons within the case can offer rich possibilities for logical inferences about causation [ 17 ]. Further, case studies of any size can be used for theory testing through refutation [ 22 ]. The potential lies, then, in utilising the strengths and plurality of case study to support theory-driven research within different methodological paradigms.

Evaluation research in health has much to learn from a range of social sciences where case study methodology has been used to develop various kinds of causal inference. For instance, Gerring [ 35 ] expands on the within-case variations utilised to make causal claims. For Gerring [ 35 ], case studies come into their own with regard to invariant or strong causal claims (such as X is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for Y) rather than for probabilistic causal claims. For the latter (where experimental methods might have an advantage in estimating effect sizes), case studies offer evidence on mechanisms: from observations of X affecting Y, from process tracing or from pattern matching. Case studies also support the study of emergent causation, that is, the multiple interacting properties that account for particular and unexpected outcomes in complex systems, such as in healthcare [ 8 ].

Finally, efficacy (or beliefs about efficacy) is not the only contributor to intervention uptake, with a range of organisational and policy contingencies affecting whether an intervention is likely to be rolled out in practice. Case study research is, therefore, invaluable for learning about contextual contingencies and identifying the conditions necessary for interventions to become normalised (i.e. implemented routinely) in practice [ 36 ].

The challenges in exploiting evidence from case study research

At present, there are significant challenges in exploiting the benefits of case study research in evaluative health research, which relate to status, definition and reporting. Case study research has been marginalised at the bottom of an evidence hierarchy, seen to offer little by way of explanatory power, if nonetheless useful for adding descriptive data on process or providing useful illustrations for policymakers [ 37 ]. This is an opportune moment to revisit this low status. As health researchers are increasingly charged with evaluating ‘natural experiments’—the use of face masks in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic being a recent example [ 38 ]—rather than interventions that take place in settings that can be controlled, research approaches using methods to strengthen causal inference that does not require randomisation become more relevant.

A second challenge for improving the use of case study evidence in evaluative health research is that, as we have seen, what is meant by ‘case study’ varies widely, not only across but also within disciplines. There is indeed little consensus amongst methodologists as to how to define ‘a case study’. Definitions focus, variously, on small sample size or lack of control over the intervention (e.g. [ 39 ] p194), on in-depth study and context [ 40 , 41 ], on the logic of inference used [ 35 ] or on distinct research strategies which incorporate a number of methods to address questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ [ 42 ]. Moreover, definitions developed for specific disciplines do not capture the range of ways in which case study research is carried out across disciplines. Multiple definitions of case study reflect the richness and diversity of the approach. However, evidence suggests that a lack of consensus across methodologists results in some of the limitations of published reports of empirical case studies [ 43 , 44 ]. Hyett and colleagues [ 43 ], for instance, reviewing reports in qualitative journals, found little match between methodological definitions of case study research and how authors used the term.

This raises the third challenge we identify that case study reports are typically not written in ways that are accessible or useful for the evaluation research community and policymakers. Case studies may not appear in journals widely read by those in the health sciences, either because space constraints preclude the reporting of rich, thick descriptions, or because of the reported lack of willingness of some biomedical journals to publish research that uses qualitative methods [ 45 ], signalling the persistence of the aforementioned evidence hierarchy. Where they do, however, the term ‘case study’ is used to indicate, interchangeably, a qualitative study, an N of 1 sample, or a multi-method, in-depth analysis of one example from a population of phenomena. Definitions of what constitutes the ‘case’ are frequently lacking and appear to be used as a synonym for the settings in which the research is conducted. Despite offering insights for evaluation, the primary aims may not have been evaluative, so the implications may not be explicitly drawn out. Indeed, some case study reports might properly be aiming for thick description without necessarily seeking to inform about context or causality.

Acknowledging plurality and developing guidance

We recognise that definitional and methodological plurality is not only inevitable, but also a necessary and creative reflection of the very different epistemological and disciplinary origins of health researchers, and the aims they have in doing and reporting case study research. Indeed, to provide some clarity, Thomas [ 46 ] has suggested a typology of subject/purpose/approach/process for classifying aims (e.g. evaluative or exploratory), sample rationale and selection and methods for data generation of case studies. We also recognise that the diversity of methods used in case study research, and the necessary focus on narrative reporting, does not lend itself to straightforward development of formal quality or reporting criteria.

Existing checklists for reporting case study research from the social sciences—for example Lincoln and Guba’s [ 47 ] and Stake’s [ 33 ]—are primarily orientated to the quality of narrative produced, and the extent to which they encapsulate thick description, rather than the more pragmatic issues of implications for intervention effects. Those designed for clinical settings, such as the CARE (CAse REports) guidelines, provide specific reporting guidelines for medical case reports about single, or small groups of patients [ 48 ], not for case study research.

The Design of Case Study Research in Health Care (DESCARTE) model [ 44 ] suggests a series of questions to be asked of a case study researcher (including clarity about the philosophy underpinning their research), study design (with a focus on case definition) and analysis (to improve process). The model resembles toolkits for enhancing the quality and robustness of qualitative and mixed-methods research reporting, and it is usefully open-ended and non-prescriptive. However, even if it does include some reflections on context, the model does not fully address aspects of context, logic and causal inference that are perhaps most relevant for evaluative research in health.

Hence, for evaluative research where the aim is to report empirical findings in ways that are intended to be pragmatically useful for health policy and practice, this may be an opportune time to consider how to best navigate plurality around what is (minimally) important to report when publishing empirical case studies, especially with regards to the complex relationships between context and interventions, information that case study research is well placed to provide.

The conventional scientific quest for certainty, predictability and linear causality (maximised in RCT designs) has to be augmented by the study of uncertainty, unpredictability and emergent causality [ 8 ] in complex systems. This will require methodological pluralism, and openness to broadening the evidence base to better understand both causality in and the transferability of system change intervention [ 14 , 20 , 23 , 25 ]. Case study research evidence is essential, yet is currently under exploited in the health sciences. If evaluative health research is to move beyond the current impasse on methods for understanding interventions as interruptions in complex systems, we need to consider in more detail how researchers can conduct and report empirical case studies which do aim to elucidate the contextual factors which interact with interventions to produce particular effects. To this end, supported by the UK’s Medical Research Council, we are embracing the challenge to develop guidance for case study researchers studying complex interventions. Following a meta-narrative review of the literature, we are planning a Delphi study to inform guidance that will, at minimum, cover the value of case study research for evaluating the interrelationship between context and complex system-level interventions; for situating and defining ‘the case’, and generalising from case studies; as well as provide specific guidance on conducting, analysing and reporting case study research. Our hope is that such guidance can support researchers evaluating interventions in complex systems to better exploit the diversity and richness of case study research.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions.

JG, MP, SP, JM, TG, CP and SS drafted the initial paper; all authors contributed to the drafting of the final version, and read and approved the final manuscript.

This work was funded by the Medical Research Council - MRC Award MR/S014632/1 HCS: Case study, Context and Complex interventions (TRIPLE C). SP was additionally funded by the University of Oxford's Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Čeština (cs)
• Deutsch (de)
• English (en)
• Español (es)
• Français (fr)
• Hrvatski (hr)
• Italiano (it)
• Português (pt)
• తెలుగు (te)
• Українська (uk)

• Library Explorer
• Collections
• K-12 Student Library
• Random Book
• Advanced Search
• My Open Library
• Log In Sign Up
• Recent Community Edits
• Help & Support
• Developer Center
• Librarians Portal
• View 1 Edition
• Related Books

Case study methodology in educational evaluation

Proceedings of the minnesota evaluation conference, may, 1981, by minnesota evaluation conference (1981 mi....

• 0 Want to read
• 0 Currently reading
• 0 Have read

My Book Notes

My private notes about this edition:

Buy this book

• Better World Books

When you buy books using these links the Internet Archive may earn a small commission .

This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one ?

Showing 1 featured edition. View all 1 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

Published in.

Minneapolis

Edition Notes

"About the contributors": p. 50

Bibliography: p. 49

The Physical Object

Community reviews (0).

• Created December 29, 2008
• 2 revisions

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help ?