why do a case study in research

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 November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are 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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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.

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, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved June 28, 2024, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

One-to-One Interview – Methods and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Triangulation in Research – Types, Methods and...

Correlational Research – Methods, Types and...

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, 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 analyse the case.

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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.

If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible. 

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

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 .

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

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 analyse 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.

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

The case study approach

Sarah crowe.

1 Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Kathrin Cresswell

2 Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Ann Robertson

3 School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Anthony Avery

Aziz sheikh.

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables ​ Tables1, 1 , ​ ,2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4) 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 - 7 ].

Example of a case study investigating the reasons for differences in recruitment rates of minority ethnic people in asthma research[ 3 ]

Example of a case study investigating the process of planning and implementing a service in Primary Care Organisations[ 4 ]

Example of a case study investigating the introduction of the electronic health records[ 5 ]

Example of a case study investigating the formal and informal ways students learn about patient safety[ 6 ]

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table ​ (Table5), 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Definitions of a case study

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table ​ (Table1), 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables ​ Tables2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4) 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 - 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3, 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table ​ (Table4 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table ​ (Table6). 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

Example of epistemological approaches that may be used in case study research

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table ​ Table7 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

Example of a checklist for rating a case study proposal[ 8 ]

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table ​ (Table3), 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table ​ Table3) 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 - 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table ​ (Table2 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table ​ (Table1 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table ​ (Table3 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table ​ (Table4 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table ​ Table3, 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table ​ (Table4), 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table ​ Table8 8 )[ 8 , 18 - 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table ​ (Table9 9 )[ 8 ].

Potential pitfalls and mitigating actions when undertaking case study research

Stake's checklist for assessing the quality of a case study report[ 8 ]

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

• Yin RK. Case study research, design and method. 4. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keen J, Packwood T. Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995; 311 :444–446. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J. et al. Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009; 6 (10):1–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO) 2008. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf
• Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T. et al. Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010; 41 :c4564. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P. the Patient Safety Education Study Group. Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010; 15 :4–10. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA. The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002; 60 (1):17–37. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R. Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002; 52 (482):746–51. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane R, Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doolin B. Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998; 13 :301–311. doi: 10.1057/jit.1998.8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George AL, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles M. the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006; 1 :1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A. Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005; 365 (9456):312–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G. Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004; 59 (7):634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U. 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005; 4 :7–22. doi: 10.1177/1471301205049188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Som CV. Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005; 18 :463–477. doi: 10.1108/09513550510608903. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001; 322 :1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000; 320 :50–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason J. Qualitative researching. London: Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V. Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008; 7 :5–17. doi: 10.1177/1534735407313395. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2. CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000; 320 :114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A. Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10 (1):67. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-67. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001; 358 :483–488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34 :1209–1224. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 2. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howcroft D, Trauth E. Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blakie N. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doolin B. Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004; 14 :343–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloomfield BP, Best A. Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992; 40 :533–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanks G, Parr A. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. Naples; 2003. Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. [ Google Scholar ]

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Locating Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks This link opens in a new window
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

• An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes​​ includes quantitative methodology.
• Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research.
• Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event.
• Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.

What are the different types of case studies?

Note: These are the primary case studies. As you continue to research and learn

about case studies you will begin to find a robust list of different types. 

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

Validity and credibility are an essential part of the case study. Therefore, the researcher should include triangulation to ensure trustworthiness while accurately reflecting what the researcher seeks to investigate.

How to write a Case Study?

When developing a case study, there are different ways you could present the information, but remember to include the five parts for your case study.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Next: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

What is case study research?

Last updated

8 February 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Suppose a company receives a spike in the number of customer complaints, or medical experts discover an outbreak of illness affecting children but are not quite sure of the reason. In both cases, carrying out a case study could be the best way to get answers.

Organization

Case studies can be carried out across different disciplines, including education, medicine, sociology, and business.

Most case studies employ qualitative methods, but quantitative methods can also be used. Researchers can then describe, compare, evaluate, and identify patterns or cause-and-effect relationships between the various variables under study. They can then use this knowledge to decide what action to take. 

Another thing to note is that case studies are generally singular in their focus. This means they narrow focus to a particular area, making them highly subjective. You cannot always generalize the results of a case study and apply them to a larger population. However, they are valuable tools to illustrate a principle or develop a thesis.

Analyze case study research

Dovetail streamlines case study research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What are the different types of case study designs?

Researchers can choose from a variety of case study designs. The design they choose is dependent on what questions they need to answer, the context of the research environment, how much data they already have, and what resources are available.

Here are the common types of case study design:

Explanatory

An explanatory case study is an initial explanation of the how or why that is behind something. This design is commonly used when studying a real-life phenomenon or event. Once the organization understands the reasons behind a phenomenon, it can then make changes to enhance or eliminate the variables causing it. 

Here is an example: How is co-teaching implemented in elementary schools? The title for a case study of this subject could be “Case Study of the Implementation of Co-Teaching in Elementary Schools.”

Descriptive

An illustrative or descriptive case study helps researchers shed light on an unfamiliar object or subject after a period of time. The case study provides an in-depth review of the issue at hand and adds real-world examples in the area the researcher wants the audience to understand. 

The researcher makes no inferences or causal statements about the object or subject under review. This type of design is often used to understand cultural shifts.

Here is an example: How did people cope with the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami? This case study could be titled "A Case Study of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and its Effect on the Indonesian Population."

Exploratory

Exploratory research is also called a pilot case study. It is usually the first step within a larger research project, often relying on questionnaires and surveys . Researchers use exploratory research to help narrow down their focus, define parameters, draft a specific research question , and/or identify variables in a larger study. This research design usually covers a wider area than others, and focuses on the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of a topic.

Here is an example: How do nutrition and socialization in early childhood affect learning in children? The title of the exploratory study may be “Case Study of the Effects of Nutrition and Socialization on Learning in Early Childhood.”

An intrinsic case study is specifically designed to look at a unique and special phenomenon. At the start of the study, the researcher defines the phenomenon and the uniqueness that differentiates it from others. 

In this case, researchers do not attempt to generalize, compare, or challenge the existing assumptions. Instead, they explore the unique variables to enhance understanding. Here is an example: “Case Study of Volcanic Lightning.”

This design can also be identified as a cumulative case study. It uses information from past studies or observations of groups of people in certain settings as the foundation of the new study. Given that it takes multiple areas into account, it allows for greater generalization than a single case study. 

The researchers also get an in-depth look at a particular subject from different viewpoints.  Here is an example: “Case Study of how PTSD affected Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Differently Due to Advances in Military Technology.”

Critical instance

A critical case study incorporates both explanatory and intrinsic study designs. It does not have predetermined purposes beyond an investigation of the said subject. It can be used for a deeper explanation of the cause-and-effect relationship. It can also be used to question a common assumption or myth. 

The findings can then be used further to generalize whether they would also apply in a different environment.  Here is an example: “What Effect Does Prolonged Use of Social Media Have on the Mind of American Youth?”

Instrumental

Instrumental research attempts to achieve goals beyond understanding the object at hand. Researchers explore a larger subject through different, separate studies and use the findings to understand its relationship to another subject. This type of design also provides insight into an issue or helps refine a theory. 

For example, you may want to determine if violent behavior in children predisposes them to crime later in life. The focus is on the relationship between children and violent behavior, and why certain children do become violent. Here is an example: “Violence Breeds Violence: Childhood Exposure and Participation in Adult Crime.”

Evaluation case study design is employed to research the effects of a program, policy, or intervention, and assess its effectiveness and impact on future decision-making. 

For example, you might want to see whether children learn times tables quicker through an educational game on their iPad versus a more teacher-led intervention. Here is an example: “An Investigation of the Impact of an iPad Multiplication Game for Primary School Children.” 

• When do you use case studies?

Case studies are ideal when you want to gain a contextual, concrete, or in-depth understanding of a particular subject. It helps you understand the characteristics, implications, and meanings of the subject.

They are also an excellent choice for those writing a thesis or dissertation, as they help keep the project focused on a particular area when resources or time may be too limited to cover a wider one. You may have to conduct several case studies to explore different aspects of the subject in question and understand the problem.

• What are the steps to follow when conducting a case study?

1. Select a case

Once you identify the problem at hand and come up with questions, identify the case you will focus on. The study can provide insights into the subject at hand, challenge existing assumptions, propose a course of action, and/or open up new areas for further research.

2. Create a theoretical framework

While you will be focusing on a specific detail, the case study design you choose should be linked to existing knowledge on the topic. This prevents it from becoming an isolated description and allows for enhancing the existing information. 

It may expand the current theory by bringing up new ideas or concepts, challenge established assumptions, or exemplify a theory by exploring how it answers the problem at hand. A theoretical framework starts with a literature review of the sources relevant to the topic in focus. This helps in identifying key concepts to guide analysis and interpretation.

3. Collect the data

Case studies are frequently supplemented with qualitative data such as observations, interviews, and a review of both primary and secondary sources such as official records, news articles, and photographs. There may also be quantitative data —this data assists in understanding the case thoroughly.

4. Analyze your case

The results of the research depend on the research design. Most case studies are structured with chapters or topic headings for easy explanation and presentation. Others may be written as narratives to allow researchers to explore various angles of the topic and analyze its meanings and implications.

In all areas, always give a detailed contextual understanding of the case and connect it to the existing theory and literature before discussing how it fits into your problem area.

• What are some case study examples?

What are the best approaches for introducing our product into the Kenyan market?

How does the change in marketing strategy aid in increasing the sales volumes of product Y?

How can teachers enhance student participation in classrooms?

How does poverty affect literacy levels in children?

Case study topics

Case study of product marketing strategies in the Kenyan market

Case study of the effects of a marketing strategy change on product Y sales volumes

Case study of X school teachers that encourage active student participation in the classroom

Case study of the effects of poverty on literacy levels in children

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, condition, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study research paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or more subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in the Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• The case represents an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• The case provides important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• The case challenges and offers a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in current practice. A case study analysis may offer an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• The case provides an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings so as to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• The case offers a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for an exploratory investigation that highlights the need for further research about the problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of east central Africa. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a rural village of Uganda can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community. This example of a case study could also point to the need for scholars to build new theoretical frameworks around the topic [e.g., applying feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation].

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work.

In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What is being studied? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis [the case] you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why is this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would involve summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to investigate the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your use of a case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in relation to explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular case [i.e., subject of analysis] and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that constitutes your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; and, c) what were the consequences of the event in relation to the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experiences they have had that provide an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of their experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using them as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem [e.g., why is one politician in a particular local election used to show an increase in voter turnout from any other candidate running in the election]. Note that these issues apply to a specific group of people used as a case study unit of analysis [e.g., a classroom of students].

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, historical, cultural, economic, political], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, explain why you are studying Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research suggests Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut off? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should clearly support investigation of the research problem and linked to key findings from your literature review. Be sure to cite any studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for examining the problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your analysis of the case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is common to combine a description of the results with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings Remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations revealed by the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research if that is how the findings can be interpreted from your case.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and any need for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) reiterate the main argument supported by the findings from your case study; 2) state clearly the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in or the preferences of your professor, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented as it applies to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were engaged with social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood more in terms of managing access rather than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis that leave the reader questioning the results.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent] knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical [context-dependent] knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 1
• What is a case study?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Alison Twycross 2
• 1 School of Nursing , Laurentian University , Sudbury , Ontario , Canada
• 2 School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON P3E2C6, Canada; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What is it?

Case study is a research methodology, typically seen in social and life sciences. There is no one definition of case study research. 1 However, very simply… ‘a case study can be defined as an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units’. 1 A case study has also been described as an intensive, systematic investigation of a single individual, group, community or some other unit in which the researcher examines in-depth data relating to several variables. 2

Often there are several similar cases to consider such as educational or social service programmes that are delivered from a number of locations. Although similar, they are complex and have unique features. In these circumstances, the evaluation of several, similar cases will provide a better answer to a research question than if only one case is examined, hence the multiple-case study. Stake asserts that the cases are grouped and viewed as one entity, called the quintain . 6  ‘We study what is similar and different about the cases to understand the quintain better’. 6

The steps when using case study methodology are the same as for other types of research. 6 The first step is defining the single case or identifying a group of similar cases that can then be incorporated into a multiple-case study. A search to determine what is known about the case(s) is typically conducted. This may include a review of the literature, grey literature, media, reports and more, which serves to establish a basic understanding of the cases and informs the development of research questions. Data in case studies are often, but not exclusively, qualitative in nature. In multiple-case studies, analysis within cases and across cases is conducted. Themes arise from the analyses and assertions about the cases as a whole, or the quintain, emerge. 6

Benefits and limitations of case studies

If a researcher wants to study a specific phenomenon arising from a particular entity, then a single-case study is warranted and will allow for a in-depth understanding of the single phenomenon and, as discussed above, would involve collecting several different types of data. This is illustrated in example 1 below.

Using a multiple-case research study allows for a more in-depth understanding of the cases as a unit, through comparison of similarities and differences of the individual cases embedded within the quintain. Evidence arising from multiple-case studies is often stronger and more reliable than from single-case research. Multiple-case studies allow for more comprehensive exploration of research questions and theory development. 6

Despite the advantages of case studies, there are limitations. The sheer volume of data is difficult to organise and data analysis and integration strategies need to be carefully thought through. There is also sometimes a temptation to veer away from the research focus. 2 Reporting of findings from multiple-case research studies is also challenging at times, 1 particularly in relation to the word limits for some journal papers.

Examples of case studies

Example 1: nurses’ paediatric pain management practices.

One of the authors of this paper (AT) has used a case study approach to explore nurses’ paediatric pain management practices. This involved collecting several datasets:

Observational data to gain a picture about actual pain management practices.

Questionnaire data about nurses’ knowledge about paediatric pain management practices and how well they felt they managed pain in children.

Questionnaire data about how critical nurses perceived pain management tasks to be.

These datasets were analysed separately and then compared 7–9 and demonstrated that nurses’ level of theoretical did not impact on the quality of their pain management practices. 7 Nor did individual nurse’s perceptions of how critical a task was effect the likelihood of them carrying out this task in practice. 8 There was also a difference in self-reported and observed practices 9 ; actual (observed) practices did not confirm to best practice guidelines, whereas self-reported practices tended to.

Example 2: quality of care for complex patients at Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinics (NPLCs)

The other author of this paper (RH) has conducted a multiple-case study to determine the quality of care for patients with complex clinical presentations in NPLCs in Ontario, Canada. 10 Five NPLCs served as individual cases that, together, represented the quatrain. Three types of data were collected including:

Review of documentation related to the NPLC model (media, annual reports, research articles, grey literature and regulatory legislation).

Interviews with nurse practitioners (NPs) practising at the five NPLCs to determine their perceptions of the impact of the NPLC model on the quality of care provided to patients with multimorbidity.

Chart audits conducted at the five NPLCs to determine the extent to which evidence-based guidelines were followed for patients with diabetes and at least one other chronic condition.

The three sources of data collected from the five NPLCs were analysed and themes arose related to the quality of care for complex patients at NPLCs. The multiple-case study confirmed that nurse practitioners are the primary care providers at the NPLCs, and this positively impacts the quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. Healthcare policy, such as lack of an increase in salary for NPs for 10 years, has resulted in issues in recruitment and retention of NPs at NPLCs. This, along with insufficient resources in the communities where NPLCs are located and high patient vulnerability at NPLCs, have a negative impact on the quality of care. 10

These examples illustrate how collecting data about a single case or multiple cases helps us to better understand the phenomenon in question. Case study methodology serves to provide a framework for evaluation and analysis of complex issues. It shines a light on the holistic nature of nursing practice and offers a perspective that informs improved patient care.

• Gustafsson J
• Calanzaro M
• Sandelowski M

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Mixed Methods Research

Conversation Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

• How it works

A Quick Guide to Case Study with Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

A case study is a documented history and detailed analysis of a situation concerning organisations, industries, and markets.

A case study:

• Focuses on discovering new facts of the situation under observation.
• Includes data collection from multiple sources over time.
• Widely used in social sciences to study the underlying information, organisation, community, or event.
• It does not provide any solution to the problem .

When to Use Case Study? 

You can use a case study in your research when:

• The focus of your study is to find answers to how and why questions .
• You don’t have enough time to conduct extensive research; case studies are convenient for completing your project successfully.
• You want to analyse real-world problems in-depth, then you can use the method of the case study.

You can consider a single case to gain in-depth knowledge about the subject, or you can choose multiple cases to know about various aspects of your  research problem .

What are the Aims of the Case Study?

• The case study aims at identifying weak areas that can be improved.
• This method is often used for idiographic research (focuses on individual cases or events).
• Another aim of the case study is nomothetic research (aims to discover new theories through data analysis of multiple cases).

Types of Case Studies

There are different types of case studies that can be categorised based on the purpose of the investigation.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of STEM disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

How to Conduct a Case Study?

• Select the Case to Investigate
• Formulate the Research Question
• Review of Literature
• Choose the Precise Case to Use in your Study
• Select Data Collection and Analysis Techniques
• Collect the Data
• Analyse the Data
• Prepare the Report

Step1: Select the Case to Investigate

The first step is to select a case to conduct your investigation. You should remember the following points.

• Make sure that you perform the study in the available timeframe.
• There should not be too much information available about the organisation.
• You should be able to get access to the organisation.
• There should be enough information available about the subject to conduct further research.

Step2: Formulate the Research Question

It’s necessary to  formulate a research question  to proceed with your case study. Most of the research questions begin with  how, why, what, or what can . 

You can also use a research statement instead of a research question to conduct your research which can be conditional or non-conditional. 

Step 3: Review of Literature

Once you formulate your research statement or question, you need to extensively  review the documentation about the existing discoveries related to your research question or statement.

Step 4: Choose the Precise Case to Use in your Study

You need to select a specific case or multiple cases related to your research. It would help if you treated each case individually while using multiple cases. The outcomes of each case can be used as contributors to the outcomes of the entire study.  You can select the following cases. 

• Representing various geographic regions
• Cases with various size parameters
• Explaining the existing theories or assumptions
• Leading to discoveries
• Providing a base for future research.

Step 5: Select Data Collection and Analysis Techniques

You can choose both  qualitative or quantitative approaches  for  collecting the data . You can use  interviews ,  surveys , artifacts, documentation, newspapers, and photographs, etc. To avoid biased observation, you can triangulate  your research to provide different views of your case. Even if you are focusing on a single case, you need to observe various case angles. It would help if you constructed validity, internal and external validity, as well as reliability.

Example: Identifying the impacts of contaminated water on people’s health and the factors responsible for it. You need to gather the data using qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand the case in such cases.

Construct validity:  You should select the most suitable measurement tool for your research. 

Internal validity:   You should use various methodological tools to  triangulate  the data. Try different methods to study the same hypothesis.

External validity:  You need to effectively apply the data beyond the case’s circumstances to more general issues.

Reliability:   You need to be confident enough to formulate the new direction for future studies based on your findings.

Also Read:  Reliability and Validity

Step 6: Collect the Data

Beware of the following when collecting data:

• Information should be gathered systematically, and the collected evidence from various sources should contribute to your research objectives.
• Don’t collect your data randomly.
• Recheck your research questions to avoid mistakes.
• You should save the collected data in any popular format for clear understanding.
• While making any changes to collecting information, make sure to record the changes in a document.
• You should maintain a case diary and note your opinions and thoughts evolved throughout the study.

Step 7: Analyse the Data

The research data identifies the relationship between the objects of study and the research questions or statements. You need to reconfirm the collected information and tabulate it correctly for better understanding. 

Step 8: Prepare the Report

It’s essential to prepare a report for your case study. You can write your case study in the form of a scientific paper or thesis discussing its detail with supporting evidence. 

A case study can be represented by incorporating  quotations,  stories, anecdotes,  interview transcripts , etc., with empirical data in the result section. 

You can also write it in narrative styles using  textual analysis  or   discourse analysis . Your report should also include evidence from published literature, and you can put it in the discussion section.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Study

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the case study.

A case study is a research method where a specific instance, event, or situation is deeply examined to gain insights into real-world complexities. It involves detailed analysis of context, data, and variables to understand patterns, causes, and effects, often used in various disciplines for in-depth exploration.

You May Also Like

This article provides the key advantages of primary research over secondary research so you can make an informed decision.

What are the different research strategies you can use in your dissertation? Here are some guidelines to help you choose a research strategy that would make your research more credible.

A confounding variable can potentially affect both the suspected cause and the suspected effect. Here is all you need to know about accounting for confounding variables in research.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Benefits of Learning Through the Case Study Method

• 28 Nov 2023

While several factors make HBS Online unique —including a global Community and real-world outcomes —active learning through the case study method rises to the top.

In a 2023 City Square Associates survey, 74 percent of HBS Online learners who also took a course from another provider said HBS Online’s case method and real-world examples were better by comparison.

Here’s a primer on the case method, five benefits you could gain, and how to experience it for yourself.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is the Harvard Business School Case Study Method?

The case study method , or case method , is a learning technique in which you’re presented with a real-world business challenge and asked how you’d solve it. After working through it yourself and with peers, you’re told how the scenario played out.

HBS pioneered the case method in 1922. Shortly before, in 1921, the first case was written.

“How do you go into an ambiguous situation and get to the bottom of it?” says HBS Professor Jan Rivkin, former senior associate dean and chair of HBS's master of business administration (MBA) program, in a video about the case method . “That skill—the skill of figuring out a course of inquiry to choose a course of action—that skill is as relevant today as it was in 1921.”

Originally developed for the in-person MBA classroom, HBS Online adapted the case method into an engaging, interactive online learning experience in 2014.

In HBS Online courses , you learn about each case from the business professional who experienced it. After reviewing their videos, you’re prompted to take their perspective and explain how you’d handle their situation.

You then get to read peers’ responses, “star” them, and comment to further the discussion. Afterward, you learn how the professional handled it and their key takeaways.

HBS Online’s adaptation of the case method incorporates the famed HBS “cold call,” in which you’re called on at random to make a decision without time to prepare.

“Learning came to life!” said Sheneka Balogun , chief administration officer and chief of staff at LeMoyne-Owen College, of her experience taking the Credential of Readiness (CORe) program . “The videos from the professors, the interactive cold calls where you were randomly selected to participate, and the case studies that enhanced and often captured the essence of objectives and learning goals were all embedded in each module. This made learning fun, engaging, and student-friendly.”

If you’re considering taking a course that leverages the case study method, here are five benefits you could experience.

5 Benefits of Learning Through Case Studies

1. take new perspectives.

The case method prompts you to consider a scenario from another person’s perspective. To work through the situation and come up with a solution, you must consider their circumstances, limitations, risk tolerance, stakeholders, resources, and potential consequences to assess how to respond.

Taking on new perspectives not only can help you navigate your own challenges but also others’. Putting yourself in someone else’s situation to understand their motivations and needs can go a long way when collaborating with stakeholders.

2. Hone Your Decision-Making Skills

Another skill you can build is the ability to make decisions effectively . The case study method forces you to use limited information to decide how to handle a problem—just like in the real world.

Throughout your career, you’ll need to make difficult decisions with incomplete or imperfect information—and sometimes, you won’t feel qualified to do so. Learning through the case method allows you to practice this skill in a low-stakes environment. When facing a real challenge, you’ll be better prepared to think quickly, collaborate with others, and present and defend your solution.

3. Become More Open-Minded

As you collaborate with peers on responses, it becomes clear that not everyone solves problems the same way. Exposing yourself to various approaches and perspectives can help you become a more open-minded professional.

When you’re part of a diverse group of learners from around the world, your experiences, cultures, and backgrounds contribute to a range of opinions on each case.

On the HBS Online course platform, you’re prompted to view and comment on others’ responses, and discussion is encouraged. This practice of considering others’ perspectives can make you more receptive in your career.

“You’d be surprised at how much you can learn from your peers,” said Ratnaditya Jonnalagadda , a software engineer who took CORe.

In addition to interacting with peers in the course platform, Jonnalagadda was part of the HBS Online Community , where he networked with other professionals and continued discussions sparked by course content.

“You get to understand your peers better, and students share examples of businesses implementing a concept from a module you just learned,” Jonnalagadda said. “It’s a very good way to cement the concepts in one's mind.”

4. Enhance Your Curiosity

One byproduct of taking on different perspectives is that it enables you to picture yourself in various roles, industries, and business functions.

“Each case offers an opportunity for students to see what resonates with them, what excites them, what bores them, which role they could imagine inhabiting in their careers,” says former HBS Dean Nitin Nohria in the Harvard Business Review . “Cases stimulate curiosity about the range of opportunities in the world and the many ways that students can make a difference as leaders.”

Through the case method, you can “try on” roles you may not have considered and feel more prepared to change or advance your career .

5. Build Your Self-Confidence

Finally, learning through the case study method can build your confidence. Each time you assume a business leader’s perspective, aim to solve a new challenge, and express and defend your opinions and decisions to peers, you prepare to do the same in your career.

According to a 2022 City Square Associates survey , 84 percent of HBS Online learners report feeling more confident making business decisions after taking a course.

“Self-confidence is difficult to teach or coach, but the case study method seems to instill it in people,” Nohria says in the Harvard Business Review . “There may well be other ways of learning these meta-skills, such as the repeated experience gained through practice or guidance from a gifted coach. However, under the direction of a masterful teacher, the case method can engage students and help them develop powerful meta-skills like no other form of teaching.”

How to Experience the Case Study Method

If the case method seems like a good fit for your learning style, experience it for yourself by taking an HBS Online course. Offerings span seven subject areas, including:

• Business essentials
• Leadership and management
• Entrepreneurship and innovation
• Finance and accounting
• Business in society

No matter which course or credential program you choose, you’ll examine case studies from real business professionals, work through their challenges alongside peers, and gain valuable insights to apply to your career.

Are you interested in discovering how HBS Online can help advance your career? Explore our course catalog and download our free guide —complete with interactive workbook sections—to determine if online learning is right for you and which course to take.

About the Author

Human-generated content, empowered by AI.

FREE eBook: Establish Authorship & Build Authority Online

When and How to Use a Case Study for Research

May 17, 2021 (Updated: May 4, 2023)

Quick Navigation

What Is Case Study Research?

Types of case studies, when should you use a case study, case study benefits, case study limitations, how to write a case study.

Imagine your company receives a string of negative reviews online. You notice a few common themes among the complaints, but you still aren’t quite sure what went wrong. Or suppose an old blog post suddenly went viral, and you’d like to know why and how to do it again. In both of these situations, a case study could be the best way to find answers.

A case study is a process whereby researchers examine a specific subject in a thorough, detailed way. The subject of a case study could be an individual, a group, a community, a business, an organization, an event, or a phenomenon. Regardless of the type of subject, case studies are in-depth investigations designed to identify patterns and cause-and-effect relationships. Case studies are often used by researchers in the field of psychology , medicine, business, social work, anthropology, education, or political science.

Because they are singular in their focus and often rely on qualitative data, case studies tend to be highly subjective. The results of a single case study cannot always be generalized and applied to the larger population. However, case studies can be valuable tools for developing a thesis or illustrating a principle. They can help researchers understand, describe, compare, and evaluate different aspects of an issue or question.

Image via Flickr by plings

Case studies can be classified according to their purpose or their subject. For instance, a case study can focus on any of the following:

• A person:  Some case studies focus on one particular person. Often, the subject will be an individual with some rare characteristic or experience.
• A group:  Group case studies could look at a family, a group of coworkers, or a friend group. It could be people thrown together by circumstance or who share some bond or relationship. A group case study could even focus on an entire community of people.
• An organization:  An organizational case study could focus on a business, a nonprofit, an institution, or any other formal entity. The study could look at the people in the organization, the processes they use, or an incident at the organization.
• A location:  An event case study focuses on a specific area. It could be used to study environmental and population changes or to examine how people use the location.
• An event:  Event case studies can be used to cover anything from a natural disaster to a political scandal. Often, these case studies are conducted retrospectively, as an investigation into a past event.

In addition to different types of subjects, case studies often have different designs or purposes. Here are a few of the most common types of case studies:

• Explanatory:  An explanatory case study tries to explain the why or how behind something. This type of case study works well when studying an event or phenomenon, like an airplane crash or unexpected power outage.
• Descriptive:  A descriptive, or illustrative, case study is designed to shed light on an unfamiliar subject. Case studies like this provide in-depth, real-world examples of whatever the researcher wants to help the audience understand. For instance, a descriptive case study could focus on the experience of a mother with postpartum depression or on a young adult who has aged out of the foster care system.
• Exploratory:  An exploratory case study, or pilot case study, often serves as the first step in a larger research project. Researchers may use a case study to help them narrow their focus, draft a specific research question, and guide the parameters of a formal, large-scale study.
• Intrinsic:  An intrinsic case study has no goal beyond a deeper understanding of its subject. In this type of study, researchers are not trying to make generalized conclusions, challenge existing assumptions, or make any compare-and-contrast connections. The most interesting thing about the study is the subject itself.
• Critical Instance:  A critical instance case study is similar to an explanatory or intrinsic study. Like an intrinsic study, it may have no predetermined purpose beyond investigating the subject. Like an explanatory study, it may be used to explain a cause-and-effect relationship. A critical instance case study may also be used to call into question a commonly held assumption or popular theory.
• Instrumental:  An instrumental case study is the opposite of an intrinsic study because it serves a purpose beyond understanding the immediate subject. In this type of study, researchers explore a larger question through an individual case or cases. For instance, researchers could use a handful of case studies to investigate the relationship between social media use and happiness.
• Cumulative:  A cumulative, or collective, case study uses information from several past studies as the basis for a new study. Because it takes into account multiple case studies, a cumulative study allows for greater generalization than a single case study. It can also be a more time- and cost-effective option since it makes use of existing research.

Case studies are often used in the exploratory phase of research to gather qualitative data. They can also be used to create, support, or refute a hypothesis and guide future research. For instance, a marketing professional might conduct a case study to discover why a viral ad campaign was so successful . They can then take any lessons they glean from the case study and apply them to future marketing efforts. A psychologist could use a case study to form a theory about the best way to treat a specific disorder. That theory could then be tested later through a large-scale controlled study.

Case studies are a good way to explore a real-world topic in-depth, illustrate a point, discuss the implications or meaning of an event, or compare the experiences of different individuals. A trainer may use a case study to bring to life what would otherwise be an abstract series of recommended action steps or to spark a conversation about how to respond in a specific scenario. Similarly, professors can use case studies to highlight key concepts from a lecture and pose questions to test students’ understanding of the material.

In some situations, case studies are the only way to compile quantitative data in an ethical manner. For instance, many of the recommendations that doctors make regarding what is or is not safe during pregnancy are based on case studies. It wouldn’t be ethical to conduct a controlled study that exposes pregnant women to potentially harmful substances, so doctors rely on the anecdotal evidence provided by case studies to find correlations and draw their conclusions.

Case studies can also be used to gather data that would be otherwise impossible or impractical to obtain. Students often use case studies for their thesis or dissertation when they lack the time or resources to conduct large-scale research. Zoologists might use existing case studies to determine the success rate of reintroducing rehabilitated animals into the wild. A historian could use case studies to explore the strategies used by dictators to gain and maintain power.

Image via Flickr by calebmmartin

Case studies can be used on their own or as a complement to other research methods, depending on the situation. The examples above are just a few instances where case studies can be useful. Case studies also work well for the following:

Providing Insight Through Qualitative Data

Case studies generally provide more qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data , and that makes them an invaluable tool for gathering insight into complex topics. Psychologists, for instance, use case studies to better understand human behavior. Crafting theories on the motives behind human actions would be difficult with quantitative data alone. The information gleaned through case studies may be subjective, but so is much of what makes us human. As individuals, we each have a unique blend of emotions, attitudes, opinions, motivations, and behaviors. Objective quantitative data is rarely the best way to identify and explain these nuances.

By their very nature, case studies allow more more intensive, in-depth study than other research methods. Rather than aiming for a large sample size, case studies follow a single subject. Often case studies are conducted over a longer period of time, and the narrow focus allows researchers to gather more detail than would be possible in a study of thousands of people. The information gleaned may not be representative of the broader population, but it does provide richer insight into the subject than other research methods.

Identifying Avenues for Future Research

Case studies are often used as the first step in a larger research project. The results of a case study cannot necessarily be generalized, but they can help researchers narrow their focus. For instance, researchers in the medical field might conduct a case study on a patient who survived an injury that typically proves fatal.

Over the course of the study, researchers may identify two or three ways in which this patient’s situation differed from others they have seen. Perhaps they identify something unique in the patient’s DNA or lifestyle choices or in the steps doctors took to treat the injury. Letting that information guide them, researchers could use other methods to deepen their understanding of those factors and perhaps develop new treatments or preventative recommendations.

Case studies can also be used in the fields of social work, politics, and anthropology to draw attention to a widespread problem and spur more research. A detailed narrative about one person’s experience will inspire more compassion than an academic paper filled with quantitative data. Stories often have a greater impact than statistics.

Challenging, Testing, or Developing Theories

Case studies can be particularly useful in the process of forming and testing theories. A case study may lead researchers to form a new theory or call into a question an existing one. They are an invaluable tool for identifying exceptions to a rule or disproving conventional wisdom.

For instance, a medical professional may write a case study about a patient who exhibited atypical symptoms to assert that the list of symptoms for a condition should be expanded. A psychologist could use a case study to determine whether the new treatment they devised for depression is effective, or to demonstrate that existing treatment methods are flawed. As the result of a case study, a marketing professional could suggest that consumers values have changed and that marketing best practices should be updated accordingly.

Enabling the Study of Unique Subjects

Some subjects would be impossible, impractical, or unethical to study through other research methods. This is true in the case of extremely rare phenomenon, many aspects of human behavior, and even some medical conditions.

Suppose a medical professional would like to gather more information about multiple-birth pregnancies with four or more fetuses. More information would be helpful because we have less information about them, but the reason we have less information is because they are so rare. Conducting case studies of a few women who are currently pregnant with multiples or have given birth to multiples in the past may be the only practical way to research them.

Case studies can also be used to gain insight into historical events and natural phenomenon — things we are not able to repeat at will. Case studies have also been used to study subjects such as a feral child , child prodigies, rare psychological conditions, crisis response, and more.

Helping People Better Understand Nuanced Concepts

Educators incorporate case studies into their lectures for a reason. Walking students through a detailed case study can make the abstract seem more real and draw out the nuances of a concept. Case studies can facilitate engaging discussions, spark thoughtful questions, and give students a chance to apply what they have learned to real-world situations.

Outside the classroom, case studies can be used to illustrate complex ideas. For instance, a well-constructed case study can highlight the unintended consequences of a new piece of legislation or demonstrate that depression does not always manifest in an obvious way. Case studies can help readers and listeners understand and care about an issue that does not directly affect them.

Despite their benefits, case studies do come with a few limitations. Compared to other research methods, case studies are often at a disadvantage in terms of the following:

Replicability

In most cases, scientists strive to create experiments that can be repeated by others. That way, other scientists can perform their own research and compare their results to those of the initial study. Assuming these other scientists achieve similar results, the replicability of the experiment lends credibility to the findings and theories of the original researchers.

One limitation of case studies is that they are often difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Although this fact does not diminish the value of case studies, it does demonstrate that case studies are not a good fit for every research problem — at least, not on their own. Additional research would have to be performed to corroborate the results and prove or disprove any generalized theories generated by a case study.

Generalization

Generalization is another area in which case studies cannot match other research methods. A case study can help us challenge existing theories and form new ones, but its results cannot necessarily be generalized. The data we gather from a case study is only valid for that specific subject, and we cannot assume that our conclusions apply to the broader population.

Researchers or readers can attempt to apply the principles from a particular case to similar situations or incorporate the results into a more comprehensive theory. However, a case study by itself can only prove the existence of certain possibilities and exceptions, not a general rule.

Reliability

The reliability of case studies may be called into question for two reasons. The first objection centers on the fallibility of human memory and the question of whether subjects are being honest. Many case studies rely on subjects to self-report biographical details, their state of mind, their thoughts and feelings, or their behaviors.

The second issue is the Hawthorne effect, which refers to the tendency of individuals to modify their behavior when they know they are being observed. This effect makes it nearly impossible for researchers to ensure that the observations and conclusions of their case study are reliable.

Researcher Bias

Researcher bias is another potential issue with case studies. The results of a case study are by nature subjective and qualitative rather than objective and qualitative, and any findings rely heavily on the observations and narrative provided by the researcher. Even the best researchers are still human, and no matter how hard they try to remain objective, they will not be able to keep their findings completely free of bias.

Researchers may have biases they are not even aware of. A researcher may over-identify with the subject and lose the benefit of a dispassionate outside perspective. If the researcher already has an opinion on the subject, they may subconsciously overlook or discount facts that contradict their pre-existing assumptions. Researcher bias can affect what the researcher observes and records, as well as how they interpret and apply their observations.

Case studies can be time-consuming and expensive to conduct. Crafting a thorough case study can be a lengthy project due to the intensive, detailed nature of this type of research. Plus, once the information has been gathered, it must be interpreted. Between the observation and analysis, a case study could take months or even years to complete. Researchers will need to be heavily involved in every step of the process, putting in a lot of time, energy, focus, and effort to ensure that the case study is as informative as possible.

Now that you understand the benefits, limitations, and types of case studies, you can follow these steps to write your own:

• Determine your objective.  Write out your research problem, question, or goal. If you aren’t sure, ask yourself questions like, “What am I trying to accomplish? What do I need to know? What will success look like?” Be clear and specific. Your answers will help you choose the right type of case study for your needs.
• Review the research.  Before delving into your case study, take some time to review the research that is already available. The information you gather during this preliminary research can help guide your efforts.
• Choose a subject.  Decide what or who the subject of your case study will be. For instance, if you are conducting a case study to find out how businesses have been affected by new CDC guidelines, you will need to choose a specific restaurant or retailer. In some cases, you may need to draft a release form for the subject to sign so that you will be able to publish your study.
• Gather information.  Case studies about a person, organization, or group may rely on questionnaires or interviews to gather information. If you are studying an event, you might use a combination of academic research and witness interviews. In some cases, you will record your own observations as part of the study.
• Write a report.  Most case studies culminate in a written report, similar to a research paper. Most case studies include five sections : an introduction, a literature review, an explanation of your methods, a discussion of your findings and the implications, followed by a conclusion.
• Publish your findings.  Once you’ve written your case study, consider the most engaging way to present your findings. A well-written research article is a good place to start, but going a step further will maximize the impact of your research. For instance, you could design an infographic to highlight key findings or commission an animated video to turn your case study into a visual narrative.

Whether research is your primary occupation or only an incidental part of your job, you can benefit from a solid understanding of what case studies are, how they work, and when to use them. Use the information and steps above to design and write a case study that will provide the answers you’re looking for.

CopyPress writer

More from the author:

Quick Navigation What Does a Content Manager Do? Who Does a Content Manager Report To? Are Content Managers Paid...

In our digital age, it’s important to know the best ways to reach your target audience and boost your...

The best content marketing conferences offer the chance to learn more about the industry and provide networking opportunities with...

RECENT ARTICLES

Read More About Measurement

27 Nov 2023

31 Oct 2023

23 May 2023

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

What the Case Study Method Really Teaches

• Nitin Nohria

Seven meta-skills that stick even if the cases fade from memory.

It’s been 100 years since Harvard Business School began using the case study method. Beyond teaching specific subject matter, the case study method excels in instilling meta-skills in students. This article explains the importance of seven such skills: preparation, discernment, bias recognition, judgement, collaboration, curiosity, and self-confidence.

During my decade as dean of Harvard Business School, I spent hundreds of hours talking with our alumni. To enliven these conversations, I relied on a favorite question: “What was the most important thing you learned from your time in our MBA program?”

• Nitin Nohria is the George F. Baker Jr. and Distinguished Service University Professor. He served as the 10th dean of Harvard Business School, from 2010 to 2020.

Partner Center

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

• Sarah Crowe 1 ,
• Kathrin Cresswell 2 ,
• Ann Robertson 2 ,
• Guro Huby 3 ,
• Anthony Avery 1 &
• Aziz Sheikh 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

788k Accesses

1063 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4

Google Scholar  

Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-

Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.

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

Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.

George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.

Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.

Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.

Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.

Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2

Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.

Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2

Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar

Book   Google Scholar  

Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press

Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.

Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.

Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

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

• Case Study Approach
• Electronic Health Record System
• Case Study Design
• Case Study Site
• Case Study Report

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

A step-by-step guide to causal study design using real-world data

• Open access
• Published: 19 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sarah Ruth Hoffman 1 ,
• Nilesh Gangan 1 ,
• Xiaoxue Chen 2 ,
• Joseph L. Smith 1 ,
• Arlene Tave 1 ,
• Yiling Yang 1 ,
• Christopher L. Crowe 1 ,
• Susan dosReis 3 &
• Michael Grabner 1  

396 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Due to the need for generalizable and rapidly delivered evidence to inform healthcare decision-making, real-world data have grown increasingly important to answer causal questions. However, causal inference using observational data poses numerous challenges, and relevant methodological literature is vast. We endeavored to identify underlying unifying themes of causal inference using real-world healthcare data and connect them into a single schema to aid in observational study design, and to demonstrate this schema using a previously published research example. A multidisciplinary team (epidemiology, biostatistics, health economics) reviewed the literature related to causal inference and observational data to identify key concepts. A visual guide to causal study design was developed to concisely and clearly illustrate how the concepts are conceptually related to one another. A case study was selected to demonstrate an application of the guide. An eight-step guide to causal study design was created, integrating essential concepts from the literature, anchored into conceptual groupings according to natural steps in the study design process. The steps include defining the causal research question and the estimand; creating a directed acyclic graph; identifying biases and design and analytic techniques to mitigate their effect, and techniques to examine the robustness of findings. The cardiovascular case study demonstrates the applicability of the steps to developing a research plan. This paper used an existing study to demonstrate the relevance of the guide. We encourage researchers to incorporate this guide at the study design stage in order to elevate the quality of future real-world evidence.

Similar content being viewed by others

Examples of Applying Causal-Inference Roadmap to Real-World Studies

Selection Mechanisms and Their Consequences: Understanding and Addressing Selection Bias

Assessing causality in epidemiology: revisiting Bradford Hill to incorporate developments in causal thinking

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Approximately 50 new drugs are approved each year in the United States (Mullard 2022 ). For all new drugs, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold-standard by which potential effectiveness (“efficacy”) and safety are established. However, RCTs cannot guarantee how a drug will perform in a less controlled context. For this reason, regulators frequently require observational, post-approval studies using “real-world” data, sometimes even as a condition of drug approval. The “real-world” data requested by regulators is often derived from insurance claims databases and/or healthcare records. Importantly, these data are recorded during routine clinical care without concern for potential use in research. Yet, in recent years, there has been increasing use of such data for causal inference and regulatory decision making, presenting a variety of methodologic challenges for researchers and stakeholders to consider (Arlett et al. 2022 ; Berger et al. 2017 ; Concato and ElZarrad 2022 ; Cox et al. 2009 ; European Medicines Agency 2023 ; Franklin and Schneeweiss 2017 ; Girman et al. 2014 ; Hernán and Robins 2016 ; International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2022 ; International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) 2020 ; Stuart et al. 2013 ; U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018 ; Velentgas et al. 2013 ).

Current guidance for causal inference using observational healthcare data articulates the need for careful study design (Berger et al. 2017 ; Cox et al. 2009 ; European Medicines Agency 2023 ; Girman et al. 2014 ; Hernán and Robins 2016 ; Stuart et al. 2013 ; Velentgas et al. 2013 ). In 2009, Cox et al. described common sources of bias in observational data and recommended specific strategies to mitigate these biases (Cox et al. 2009 ). In 2013, Stuart et al. emphasized counterfactual theory and trial emulation, offered several approaches to address unmeasured confounding, and provided guidance on the use of propensity scores to balance confounding covariates (Stuart et al. 2013 ). In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) released an extensive, 200-page guide to developing a protocol for comparative effectiveness research using observational data (Velentgas et al. 2013 ). The guide emphasized development of the research question, with additional chapters on study design, comparator selection, sensitivity analyses, and directed acyclic graphs (Velentgas et al. 2013 ). In 2014, Girman et al. provided a clear set of steps for assessing study feasibility including examination of the appropriateness of the data for the research question (i.e., ‘fit-for-purpose’), empirical equipoise, and interpretability, stating that comparative effectiveness research using observational data “should be designed with the goal of drawing a causal inference” (Girman et al. 2014 ). In 2017 , Berger et al. described aspects of “study hygiene,” focusing on procedural practices to enhance confidence in, and credibility of, real-world data studies (Berger et al. 2017 ). Currently, the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) maintains a guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology which discusses causal inference using observational data and includes an overview of study designs, a chapter on methods to address bias and confounding, and guidance on writing statistical analysis plans (European Medicines Agency 2023 ). In addition to these resources, the “target trial framework” provides a structured approach to planning studies for causal inferences from observational databases (Hernán and Robins 2016 ; Wang et al. 2023b ). This framework, published in 2016, encourages researchers to first imagine a clinical trial for the study question of interest and then to subsequently design the observational study to reflect the hypothetical trial (Hernán and Robins 2016 ).

While the literature addresses critical issues collectively, there remains a need for a framework that puts key components, including the target trial approach, into a simple, overarching schema (Loveless 2022 ) so they can be more easily remembered, and communicated to all stakeholders including (new) researchers, peer-reviewers, and other users of the research findings (e.g., practicing providers, professional clinical societies, regulators). For this reason, we created a step-by-step guide for causal inference using administrative health data, which aims to integrate these various best practices at a high level and complements existing, more specific guidance, including those from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) (Berger et al. 2017 ; Cox et al. 2009 ; Girman et al. 2014 ). We demonstrate the application of this schema using a previously published paper in cardiovascular research.

This work involved a formative phase and an implementation phase to evaluate the utility of the causal guide. In the formative phase, a multidisciplinary team with research expertise in epidemiology, biostatistics, and health economics reviewed selected literature (peer-reviewed publications, including those mentioned in the introduction, as well as graduate-level textbooks) related to causal inference and observational healthcare data from the pharmacoepidemiologic and pharmacoeconomic perspectives. The potential outcomes framework served as the foundation for our conception of causal inference (Rubin 2005 ). Information was grouped into the following four concepts: (1) Defining the Research Question; (2) Defining the Estimand; (3) Identifying and Mitigating Biases; (4) Sensitivity Analysis. A step-by-step guide to causal study design was developed to distill the essential elements of each concept, organizing them into a single schema so that the concepts are clearly related to one another. References for each step of the schema are included in the Supplemental Table.

In the implementation phase we tested the application of the causal guide to previously published work (Dondo et al. 2017 ). The previously published work utilized data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP), the United Kingdom’s national heart attack register. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of β-blockers on all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We selected this paper for the case study because of its clear descriptions of the research goal and methods, and the explicit and methodical consideration of potential biases and use of sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the main findings.

3.1 Overview of the eight steps

The step-by-step guide to causal inference comprises eight distinct steps (Fig.  1 ) across the four concepts. As scientific inquiry and study design are iterative processes, the various steps may be completed in a different order than shown, and steps may be revisited.

A step-by-step guide for causal study design

Abbreviations: GEE: generalized estimating equations; IPC/TW: inverse probability of censoring/treatment weighting; ITR: individual treatment response; MSM: marginal structural model; TE: treatment effect

Please refer to the Supplemental Table for references providing more in-depth information.

1 Ensure that the exposure and outcome are well-defined based on literature and expert opinion.

2 More specifically, measures of association are not affected by issues such as confounding and selection bias because they do not intend to isolate and quantify a single causal pathway. However, information bias (e.g., variable misclassification) can negatively affect association estimates, and association estimates remain subject to random variability (and are hence reported with confidence intervals).

3 This list is not exhaustive; it focuses on frequently encountered biases.

4 To assess bias in a nonrandomized study following the target trial framework, use of the ROBINS-I tool is recommended ( https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i4919 ).

5 Only a selection of the most popular approaches is presented here. Other methods exist; e.g., g-computation and g-estimation for both time-invariant and time-varying analysis; instrumental variables; and doubly-robust estimation methods. There are also program evaluation methods (e.g., difference-in-differences, regression discontinuities) that can be applied to pharmacoepidemiologic questions. Conventional outcome regression analysis is not recommended for causal estimation due to issues determining covariate balance, correct model specification, and interpretability of effect estimates.

6 Online tools include, among others, an E-value calculator for unmeasured confounding ( https://www.evalue-calculator.com /) and the P95 outcome misclassification estimator ( http://apps.p-95.com/ISPE /).

3.2 Defining the Research question (step 1)

The process of designing a study begins with defining the research question. Research questions typically center on whether a causal relationship exists between an exposure and an outcome. This contrasts with associative questions, which, by their nature, do not require causal study design elements because they do not attempt to isolate a causal pathway from a single exposure to an outcome under study. It is important to note that the phrasing of the question itself should clarify whether an association or a causal relationship is of interest. The study question “Does statin use reduce the risk of future cardiovascular events?” is explicitly causal and requires that the study design addresses biases such as confounding. In contrast, the study question “Is statin use associated with a reduced risk of future cardiovascular events?” can be answered without control of confounding since the word “association” implies correlation. Too often, however, researchers use the word “association” to describe their findings when their methods were created to address explicitly causal questions (Hernán 2018 ). For example, a study that uses propensity score-based methods to balance risk factors between treatment groups is explicitly attempting to isolate a causal pathway by removing confounding factors. This is different from a study that intends only to measure an association. In fact, some journals may require that the word “association” be used when causal language would be more appropriate; however, this is beginning to change (Flanagin et al. 2024 ).

3.3 Defining the estimand (steps 2, 3, 4)

The estimand is the causal effect of research interest and is described in terms of required design elements: the target population for the counterfactual contrast, the kind of effect, and the effect/outcome measure.

In Step 2, the study team determines the target population of interest, which depends on the research question of interest. For example, we may want to estimate the effect of the treatment in the entire study population, i.e., the hypothetical contrast between all study patients taking the drug of interest versus all study patients taking the comparator (the average treatment effect; ATE). Other effects can be examined, including the average treatment effect in the treated or untreated (ATT or ATU).When covariate distributions are the same across the treated and untreated populations and there is no effect modification by covariates, these effects are generally the same (Wang et al. 2017 ). In RCTs, this occurs naturally due to randomization, but in non-randomized data, careful study design and statistical methods must be used to mitigate confounding bias.

In Step 3, the study team decides whether to measure the intention-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol, or as-treated effect. The ITT approach is also known as “first-treatment-carried-forward” in the observational literature (Lund et al. 2015 ). In trials, the ITT measures the effect of treatment assignment rather than the treatment itself, and in observational data the ITT can be conceptualized as measuring the effect of treatment as started . To compute the ITT effect from observational data, patients are placed into the exposure group corresponding to the treatment that they initiate, and treatment switching or discontinuation are purposely ignored in the analysis. Alternatively, a per-protocol effect can be measured from observational data by classifying patients according to the treatment that they initiated but censoring them when they stop, switch, or otherwise change treatment (Danaei et al. 2013 ; Yang et al. 2014 ). Finally, “as-treated” effects are estimated from observational data by classifying patients according to their actual treatment exposure during follow-up, for example by using multiple time windows to measure exposure changes (Danaei et al. 2013 ; Yang et al. 2014 ).

Step 4 is the final step in specifying the estimand in which the research team determines the effect measure of interest. Answering this question has two parts. First, the team must consider how the outcome of interest will be measured. Risks, rates, hazards, odds, and costs are common ways of measuring outcomes, but each measure may be best suited to a particular scenario. For example, risks assume patients across comparison groups have equal follow-up time, while rates allow for variable follow-up time (Rothman et al. 2008 ). Costs may be of interest in studies focused on economic outcomes, including as inputs to cost-effectiveness analyses. After deciding how the outcome will be measured, it is necessary to consider whether the resulting quantity will be compared across groups using a ratio or a difference. Ratios convey the effect of exposure in a way that is easy to understand, but they do not provide an estimate of how many patients will be affected. On the other hand, differences provide a clearer estimate of the potential public health impact of exposure; for example, by allowing the calculation of the number of patients that must be treated to cause or prevent one instance of the outcome of interest (Tripepi et al. 2007 ).

3.4 Identifying and mitigating biases (steps 5, 6, 7)

Observational, real-world studies can be subject to multiple potential sources of bias, which can be grouped into confounding, selection, measurement, and time-related biases (Prada-Ramallal et al. 2019 ).

In Step 5, as a practical first approach in developing strategies to address threats to causal inference, researchers should create a visual mapping of factors that may be related to the exposure, outcome, or both (also called a directed acyclic graph or DAG) (Pearl 1995 ). While creating a high-quality DAG can be challenging, guidance is increasingly available to facilitate the process (Ferguson et al. 2020 ; Gatto et al. 2022 ; Hernán and Robins 2020 ; Rodrigues et al. 2022 ; Sauer 2013 ). The types of inter-variable relationships depicted by DAGs include confounders, colliders, and mediators. Confounders are variables that affect both exposure and outcome, and it is necessary to control for them in order to isolate the causal pathway of interest. Colliders represent variables affected by two other variables, such as exposure and outcome (Griffith et al. 2020 ). Colliders should not be conditioned on since by doing so, the association between exposure and outcome will become distorted. Mediators are variables that are affected by the exposure and go on to affect the outcome. As such, mediators are on the causal pathway between exposure and outcome and should also not be conditioned on, otherwise a path between exposure and outcome will be closed and the total effect of the exposure on the outcome cannot be estimated. Mediation analysis is a separate type of analysis aiming to distinguish between direct and indirect (mediated) effects between exposure and outcome and may be applied in certain cases (Richiardi et al. 2013 ). Overall, the process of creating a DAG can create valuable insights about the nature of the hypothesized underlying data generating process and the biases that are likely to be encountered (Digitale et al. 2022 ). Finally, an extension to DAGs which incorporates counterfactual theory is available in the form of Single World Intervention Graphs (SWIGs) as described in a 2013 primer (Richardson and Robins 2013 ).

In Step 6, researchers comprehensively assess the possibility of different types of bias in their study, above and beyond what the creation of the DAG reveals. Many potential biases have been identified and summarized in the literature (Berger et al. 2017 ; Cox et al. 2009 ; European Medicines Agency 2023 ; Girman et al. 2014 ; Stuart et al. 2013 ; Velentgas et al. 2013 ). Every study can be subject to one or more biases, each of which can be addressed using one or more methods. The study team should thoroughly and explicitly identify all possible biases with consideration for the specifics of the available data and the nuances of the population and health care system(s) from which the data arise. Once the potential biases are identified and listed, the team can consider potential solutions using a variety of study design and analytic techniques.

In Step 7, the study team considers solutions to the biases identified in Step 6. “Target trial” thinking serves as the basis for many of these solutions by requiring researchers to consider how observational studies can be designed to ensure comparison groups are similar and produce valid inferences by emulating RCTs (Labrecque and Swanson 2017 ; Wang et al. 2023b ). Designing studies to include only new users of a drug and an active comparator group is one way of increasing the similarity of patients across both groups, particularly in terms of treatment history. Careful consideration must be paid to the specification of the time periods and their relationship to inclusion/exclusion criteria (Suissa and Dell’Aniello 2020 ). For instance, if a drug is used intermittently, a longer wash-out period is needed to ensure adequate capture of prior use in order to avoid bias (Riis et al. 2015 ). The study team should consider how to approach confounding adjustment, and whether both time-invariant and time-varying confounding may be present. Many potential biases exist, and many methods have been developed to address them in order to improve causal estimation from observational data. Many of these methods, such as propensity score estimation, can be enhanced by machine learning (Athey and Imbens 2019 ; Belthangady et al. 2021 ; Mai et al. 2022 ; Onasanya et al. 2024 ; Schuler and Rose 2017 ; Westreich et al. 2010 ). Machine learning has many potential applications in the causal inference discipline, and like other tools, must be used with careful planning and intentionality. To aid in the assessment of potential biases, especially time-related ones, and the development of a plan to address them, the study design should be visualized (Gatto et al. 2022 ; Schneeweiss et al. 2019 ). Additionally, we note the opportunity for collaboration across research disciplines (e.g., the application of difference-in-difference methods (Zhou et al. 2016 ) to the estimation of comparative drug effectiveness and safety).

3.5 Quality Control & sensitivity analyses (step 8)

Causal study design concludes with Step 8, which includes planning quality control and sensitivity analyses to improve the internal validity of the study. Quality control begins with reviewing study output for prima facie validity. Patient characteristics (e.g., distributions of age, sex, region) should align with expected values from the researchers’ intuition and the literature, and researchers should assess reasons for any discrepancies. Sensitivity analyses should be conducted to determine the robustness of study findings. Researchers can test the stability of study estimates using a different estimand or type of model than was used in the primary analysis. Sensitivity analysis estimates that are similar to those of the primary analysis might confirm that the primary analysis estimates are appropriate. The research team may be interested in how changes to study inclusion/exclusion criteria may affect study findings or wish to address uncertainties related to measuring the exposure or outcome in the administrative data by modifying the algorithms used to identify exposure or outcome (e.g., requiring hospitalization with a diagnosis code in a principal position rather than counting any claim with the diagnosis code in any position). As feasible, existing validation studies for the exposure and outcome should be referenced, or new validation efforts undertaken. The results of such validation studies can inform study estimates via quantitative bias analyses (Lanes and Beachler 2023 ). The study team may also consider biases arising from unmeasured confounding and plan quantitative bias analyses to explore how unmeasured confounding may impact estimates. Quantitative bias analysis can assess the directionality, magnitude, and uncertainty of errors arising from a variety of limitations (Brenner and Gefeller 1993 ; Lash et al. 2009 , 2014 ; Leahy et al. 2022 ).

3.6 Illustration using a previously published research study

In order to demonstrate how the guide can be used to plan a research study utilizing causal methods, we turn to a previously published study (Dondo et al. 2017 ) that assessed the causal relationship between the use of 𝛽-blockers and mortality after acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The investigators sought to answer a causal research question (Step 1), and so we proceed to Step 2. Use (or no use) of 𝛽-blockers was determined after discharge without taking into consideration discontinuation or future treatment changes (i.e., intention-to-treat). Considering treatment for whom (Step 3), both ATE and ATT were evaluated. Since survival was the primary outcome, an absolute difference in survival time was chosen as the effect measure (Step 4). While there was no explicit directed acyclic graph provided, the investigators specified a list of confounders.

Robust methodologies were established by consideration of possible sources of biases and addressing them using viable solutions (Steps 6 and 7). Table  1 offers a list of the identified potential biases and their corresponding solutions as implemented. For example, to minimize potential biases including prevalent-user bias and selection bias, the sample was restricted to patients with no previous use of 𝛽-blockers, no contraindication for 𝛽-blockers, and no prescription of loop diuretics. To improve balance across the comparator groups in terms of baseline confounders, i.e., those that could influence both exposure (𝛽-blocker use) and outcome (mortality), propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed. However, we noted that the baseline look-back period to assess measured covariates was not explicitly listed in the paper.

Quality control and sensitivity analysis (Step 8) is described extensively. The overlap of propensity score distributions between comparator groups was tested and confounder balance was assessed. Since observations in the tail-end of the propensity score distribution may violate the positivity assumption (Crump et al. 2009 ), a sensitivity analysis was conducted including only cases within 0.1 to 0.9 of the propensity score distribution. While not mentioned by the authors, the PS tails can be influenced by unmeasured confounders (Sturmer et al. 2021 ), and the findings were robust with and without trimming. An assessment of extreme IPTW weights, while not included, would further help increase confidence in the robustness of the analysis. An instrumental variable approach was employed to assess potential selection bias due to unmeasured confounding, using hospital rates of guideline-indicated prescribing as the instrument. Additionally, potential bias caused by missing data was attenuated through the use of multiple imputation, and separate models were built for complete cases only and imputed/complete cases.

4 Discussion

We have described a conceptual schema for designing observational real-world studies to estimate causal effects. The application of this schema to a previously published study illuminates the methodologic structure of the study, revealing how each structural element is related to a potential bias which it is meant to address. Real-world evidence is increasingly accepted by healthcare stakeholders, including the FDA (Concato and Corrigan-Curay 2022 ; Concato and ElZarrad 2022 ), and its use for comparative effectiveness and safety assessments requires appropriate causal study design; our guide is meant to facilitate this design process and complement existing, more specific, guidance.

Existing guidance for causal inference using observational data includes components that can be clearly mapped onto the schema that we have developed. For example, in 2009 Cox et al. described common sources of bias in observational data and recommended specific strategies to mitigate these biases, corresponding to steps 6–8 of our step-by-step guide (Cox et al. 2009 ). In 2013, the AHRQ emphasized development of the research question, corresponding to steps 1–4 of our guide, with additional chapters on study design, comparator selection, sensitivity analyses, and directed acyclic graphs which correspond to steps 7 and 5, respectively (Velentgas et al. 2013 ). Much of Girman et al.’s manuscript (Girman et al. 2014 ) corresponds with steps 1–4 of our guide, and the matter of equipoise and interpretability specifically correspond to steps 3 and 7–8. The current ENCePP guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology contains a section on formulating a meaningful research question, corresponding to step 1, and describes strategies to mitigate specific sources of bias, corresponding to steps 6–8 (European Medicines Agency 2023 ). Recent works by the FDA Sentinel Innovation Center (Desai et al. 2024 ) and the Joint Initiative for Causal Inference (Dang et al. 2023 ) provide more advanced exposition of many of the steps in our guide. The target trial framework contains guidance on developing seven components of the study protocol, including eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrast of interest, and analysis plan (Hernán and Robins 2016 ). Our work places the target trial framework into a larger context illustrating its relationship with other important study planning considerations, including the creation of a directed acyclic graph and incorporation of prespecified sensitivity and quantitative bias analyses.

Ultimately, the feasibility of estimating causal effects relies on the capabilities of the available data. Real-world data sources are complex, and the investigator must carefully consider whether the data on hand are sufficient to answer the research question. For example, a study that relies solely on claims data for outcome ascertainment may suffer from outcome misclassification bias (Lanes and Beachler 2023 ). This bias can be addressed through medical record validation for a random subset of patients, followed by quantitative bias analysis (Lanes and Beachler 2023 ). If instead, the investigator wishes to apply a previously published, claims-based algorithm validated in a different database, they must carefully consider the transportability of that algorithm to their own study population. In this way, causal inference from real-world data requires the ability to think creatively and resourcefully about how various data sources and elements can be leveraged, with consideration for the strengths and limitations of each source. The heart of causal inference is in the pairing of humility and creativity: the humility to acknowledge what the data cannot do, and the creativity to address those limitations as best as one can at the time.

4.1 Limitations

As with any attempt to synthesize a broad array of information into a single, simplified schema, there are several limitations to our work. Space and useability constraints necessitated simplification of the complex source material and selections among many available methodologies, and information about the relative importance of each step is not currently included. Additionally, it is important to consider the context of our work. This step-by-step guide emphasizes analytic techniques (e.g., propensity scores) that are used most frequently within our own research environment and may not include less familiar study designs and analytic techniques. However, one strength of the guide is that additional designs and techniques or concepts can easily be incorporated into the existing schema. The benefit of a schema is that new information can be added and is more readily accessed due to its association with previously sorted information (Loveless 2022 ). It is also important to note that causal inference was approached as a broad overarching concept defined by the totality of the research, from start to finish, rather than focusing on a particular analytic technique, however we view this as a strength rather than a limitation.

Finally, the focus of this guide was on the methodologic aspects of study planning. As a result, we did not include steps for drafting or registering the study protocol in a public database or for communicating results. We strongly encourage researchers to register their study protocols and communicate their findings with transparency. A protocol template endorsed by ISPOR and ISPE for studies using real-world data to evaluate treatment effects is available (Wang et al. 2023a ). Additionally, the steps described above are intended to illustrate an order of thinking in the study planning process, and these steps are often iterative. The guide is not intended to reflect the order of study execution; specifically, quality control procedures and sensitivity analyses should also be formulated up-front at the protocol stage.

5 Conclusion

We outlined steps and described key conceptual issues of importance in designing real-world studies to answer causal questions, and created a visually appealing, user-friendly resource to help researchers clearly define and navigate these issues. We hope this guide serves to enhance the quality, and thus the impact, of real-world evidence.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Arlett, P., Kjaer, J., Broich, K., Cooke, E.: Real-world evidence in EU Medicines Regulation: Enabling Use and establishing value. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 111 (1), 21–23 (2022)

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Athey, S., Imbens, G.W.: Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About. Annual Review of Economics 11(Volume 11, 2019): 685–725. (2019)

Belthangady, C., Stedden, W., Norgeot, B.: Minimizing bias in massive multi-arm observational studies with BCAUS: Balancing covariates automatically using supervision. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 21 (1), 190 (2021)

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Berger, M.L., Sox, H., Willke, R.J., Brixner, D.L., Eichler, H.G., Goettsch, W., Madigan, D., Makady, A., Schneeweiss, S., Tarricone, R., Wang, S.V., Watkins, J.: and C. Daniel Mullins. 2017. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 26 (9): 1033–1039

Brenner, H., Gefeller, O.: Use of the positive predictive value to correct for disease misclassification in epidemiologic studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 138 (11), 1007–1015 (1993)

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Concato, J., Corrigan-Curay, J.: Real-world evidence - where are we now? N Engl. J. Med. 386 (18), 1680–1682 (2022)

Concato, J., ElZarrad, M.: FDA Issues Draft Guidances on Real-World Evidence, Prepares to Publish More in Future [accessed on 2022]. (2022). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fda-issues-draft-guidances-real-world-evidence-prepares-publish-more-future

Cox, E., Martin, B.C., Van Staa, T., Garbe, E., Siebert, U., Johnson, M.L.: Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report–Part II. Value Health. 12 (8), 1053–1061 (2009)

Crump, R.K., Hotz, V.J., Imbens, G.W., Mitnik, O.A.: Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika. 96 (1), 187–199 (2009)

Article   Google Scholar  

Danaei, G., Rodriguez, L.A., Cantero, O.F., Logan, R., Hernan, M.A.: Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: An emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 22 (1), 70–96 (2013)

Dang, L.E., Gruber, S., Lee, H., Dahabreh, I.J., Stuart, E.A., Williamson, B.D., Wyss, R., Diaz, I., Ghosh, D., Kiciman, E., Alemayehu, D., Hoffman, K.L., Vossen, C.Y., Huml, R.A., Ravn, H., Kvist, K., Pratley, R., Shih, M.C., Pennello, G., Martin, D., Waddy, S.P., Barr, C.E., Akacha, M., Buse, J.B., van der Laan, M., Petersen, M.: A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence. J. Clin. Transl Sci. 7 (1), e212 (2023)

Desai, R.J., Wang, S.V., Sreedhara, S.K., Zabotka, L., Khosrow-Khavar, F., Nelson, J.C., Shi, X., Toh, S., Wyss, R., Patorno, E., Dutcher, S., Li, J., Lee, H., Ball, R., Dal Pan, G., Segal, J.B., Suissa, S., Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S., Hernan, M.A., Heagerty, P.J., Schneeweiss, S.: Process guide for inferential studies using healthcare data from routine clinical practice to evaluate causal effects of drugs (PRINCIPLED): Considerations from the FDA Sentinel Innovation Center. BMJ. 384 , e076460 (2024)

Digitale, J.C., Martin, J.N., Glymour, M.M.: Tutorial on directed acyclic graphs. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 142 , 264–267 (2022)

Dondo, T.B., Hall, M., West, R.M., Jernberg, T., Lindahl, B., Bueno, H., Danchin, N., Deanfield, J.E., Hemingway, H., Fox, K.A.A., Timmis, A.D., Gale, C.P.: beta-blockers and Mortality after Acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or ventricular dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69 (22), 2710–2720 (2017)

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

European Medicines Agency: ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology [accessed on 2023]. (2023). https://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/methodologicalGuide.shtml

Ferguson, K.D., McCann, M., Katikireddi, S.V., Thomson, H., Green, M.J., Smith, D.J., Lewsey, J.D.: Evidence synthesis for constructing directed acyclic graphs (ESC-DAGs): A novel and systematic method for building directed acyclic graphs. Int. J. Epidemiol. 49 (1), 322–329 (2020)

Flanagin, A., Lewis, R.J., Muth, C.C., Curfman, G.: What does the proposed causal inference Framework for Observational studies Mean for JAMA and the JAMA Network Journals? JAMA (2024)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Framework for FDA’s Real-World Evidence Program [accessed on 2018]. (2018). https://www.fda.gov/media/120060/download

Franklin, J.M., Schneeweiss, S.: When and how can Real World Data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 102 (6), 924–933 (2017)

Gatto, N.M., Wang, S.V., Murk, W., Mattox, P., Brookhart, M.A., Bate, A., Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J.A.: Visualizations throughout pharmacoepidemiology study planning, implementation, and reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 31 (11), 1140–1152 (2022)

Girman, C.J., Faries, D., Ryan, P., Rotelli, M., Belger, M., Binkowitz, B., O’Neill, R.: and C. E. R. S. W. G. Drug Information Association. 2014. Pre-study feasibility and identifying sensitivity analyses for protocol pre-specification in comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3 (3): 259–270

Griffith, G.J., Morris, T.T., Tudball, M.J., Herbert, A., Mancano, G., Pike, L., Sharp, G.C., Sterne, J., Palmer, T.M., Davey Smith, G., Tilling, K., Zuccolo, L., Davies, N.M., Hemani, G.: Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity. Nat. Commun. 11 (1), 5749 (2020)

Hernán, M.A.: The C-Word: Scientific euphemisms do not improve causal inference from Observational Data. Am. J. Public Health. 108 (5), 616–619 (2018)

Hernán, M.A., Robins, J.M.: Using Big Data to emulate a target Trial when a Randomized Trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183 (8), 758–764 (2016)

Hernán, M., Robins, J.: Causal Inference: What if. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2020)

Google Scholar  

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR): Strategic Initiatives: Real-World Evidence [accessed on 2022]. (2022). https://www.ispor.org/strategic-initiatives/real-world-evidence

International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE): Position on Real-World Evidence [accessed on 2020]. (2020). https://pharmacoepi.org/pub/?id=136DECF1-C559-BA4F-92C4-CF6E3ED16BB6

Labrecque, J.A., Swanson, S.A.: Target trial emulation: Teaching epidemiology and beyond. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 32 (6), 473–475 (2017)

Lanes, S., Beachler, D.C.: Validation to correct for outcome misclassification bias. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. (2023)

Lash, T.L., Fox, M.P., Fink, A.K.: Applying Quantitative bias Analysis to Epidemiologic data. Springer (2009)

Lash, T.L., Fox, M.P., MacLehose, R.F., Maldonado, G., McCandless, L.C., Greenland, S.: Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43 (6), 1969–1985 (2014)

Leahy, T.P., Kent, S., Sammon, C., Groenwold, R.H., Grieve, R., Ramagopalan, S., Gomes, M.: Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: Quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 11 (12), 851–859 (2022)

Loveless, B.: A Complete Guide to Schema Theory and its Role in Education [accessed on 2022]. (2022). https://www.educationcorner.com/schema-theory/

Lund, J.L., Richardson, D.B., Sturmer, T.: The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: Historical foundations and contemporary application. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 2 (4), 221–228 (2015)

Mai, X., Teng, C., Gao, Y., Governor, S., He, X., Kalloo, G., Hoffman, S., Mbiydzenyuy, D., Beachler, D.: A pragmatic comparison of logistic regression versus machine learning methods for propensity score estimation. Supplement: Abstracts of the 38th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology: Advancing Pharmacoepidemiology and Real-World Evidence for the Global Community, August 26–28, 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 31(S2). (2022)

Mullard, A.: 2021 FDA approvals. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 21 (2), 83–88 (2022)

Onasanya, O., Hoffman, S., Harris, K., Dixon, R., Grabner, M.: Current applications of machine learning for causal inference in healthcare research using observational data. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Atlanta, GA. (2024)

Pearl, J.: Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika. 82 (4), 669–688 (1995)

Prada-Ramallal, G., Takkouche, B., Figueiras, A.: Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: A scoping review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 (1), 53 (2019)

Richardson, T.S., Robins, J.M.: Single World Intervention Graphs: A Primer [accessed on 2013]. (2013). https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~evans/uai13/Richardson.pdf

Richiardi, L., Bellocco, R., Zugna, D.: Mediation analysis in epidemiology: Methods, interpretation and bias. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42 (5), 1511–1519 (2013)

Riis, A.H., Johansen, M.B., Jacobsen, J.B., Brookhart, M.A., Sturmer, T., Stovring, H.: Short look-back periods in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of new users of antibiotics and asthma medications introduce severe misclassification. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 24 (5), 478–485 (2015)

Rodrigues, D., Kreif, N., Lawrence-Jones, A., Barahona, M., Mayer, E.: Reflection on modern methods: Constructing directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) with domain experts for health services research. Int. J. Epidemiol. 51 (4), 1339–1348 (2022)

Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S., Lash, T.L.: Modern Epidemiology. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2008)

Rubin, D.B.: Causal inference using potential outcomes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100 (469), 322–331 (2005)

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sauer, B.V.: TJ. Use of Directed Acyclic Graphs. In Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User’s Guide , edited by P. Velentgas, N. Dreyer, and P. Nourjah: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) (2013)

Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J.A., Brown, J.S., Rothman, K.J., Happe, L., Arlett, P., Dal Pan, G., Goettsch, W., Murk, W., Wang, S.V.: Graphical depiction of longitudinal study designs in Health Care databases. Ann. Intern. Med. 170 (6), 398–406 (2019)

Schuler, M.S., Rose, S.: Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for causal inference in Observational studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 185 (1), 65–73 (2017)

Stuart, E.A., DuGoff, E., Abrams, M., Salkever, D., Steinwachs, D.: Estimating causal effects in observational studies using Electronic Health data: Challenges and (some) solutions. EGEMS (Wash DC) 1 (3). (2013)

Sturmer, T., Webster-Clark, M., Lund, J.L., Wyss, R., Ellis, A.R., Lunt, M., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J.: Propensity score weighting and trimming strategies for reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect estimates: A Simulation Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 190 (8), 1659–1670 (2021)

Suissa, S., Dell’Aniello, S.: Time-related biases in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 29 (9), 1101–1110 (2020)

Tripepi, G., Jager, K.J., Dekker, F.W., Wanner, C., Zoccali, C.: Measures of effect: Relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference, and ‘number needed to treat’. Kidney Int. 72 (7), 789–791 (2007)

Velentgas, P., Dreyer, N., Nourjah, P., Smith, S., Torchia, M.: Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User’s Guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Publication 12(13). (2013)

Wang, A., Nianogo, R.A., Arah, O.A.: G-computation of average treatment effects on the treated and the untreated. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 17 (1), 3 (2017)

Wang, S.V., Pottegard, A., Crown, W., Arlett, P., Ashcroft, D.M., Benchimol, E.I., Berger, M.L., Crane, G., Goettsch, W., Hua, W., Kabadi, S., Kern, D.M., Kurz, X., Langan, S., Nonaka, T., Orsini, L., Perez-Gutthann, S., Pinheiro, S., Pratt, N., Schneeweiss, S., Toussi, M., Williams, R.J.: HARmonized Protocol Template to enhance reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 32 (1), 44–55 (2023a)

Wang, S.V., Schneeweiss, S., Initiative, R.-D., Franklin, J.M., Desai, R.J., Feldman, W., Garry, E.M., Glynn, R.J., Lin, K.J., Paik, J., Patorno, E., Suissa, S., D’Andrea, E., Jawaid, D., Lee, H., Pawar, A., Sreedhara, S.K., Tesfaye, H., Bessette, L.G., Zabotka, L., Lee, S.B., Gautam, N., York, C., Zakoul, H., Concato, J., Martin, D., Paraoan, D.: and K. Quinto. Emulation of Randomized Clinical Trials With Nonrandomized Database Analyses: Results of 32 Clinical Trials. JAMA 329(16): 1376-85. (2023b)

Westreich, D., Lessler, J., Funk, M.J.: Propensity score estimation: Neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63 (8), 826–833 (2010)

Yang, S., Eaton, C.B., Lu, J., Lapane, K.L.: Application of marginal structural models in pharmacoepidemiologic studies: A systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 23 (6), 560–571 (2014)

Zhou, H., Taber, C., Arcona, S., Li, Y.: Difference-in-differences method in comparative Effectiveness Research: Utility with unbalanced groups. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy. 14 (4), 419–429 (2016)

Download references

The authors received no financial support for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Carelon Research, Wilmington, DE, USA

Sarah Ruth Hoffman, Nilesh Gangan, Joseph L. Smith, Arlene Tave, Yiling Yang, Christopher L. Crowe & Michael Grabner

Elevance Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Xiaoxue Chen

University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA

Susan dosReis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SH, NG, JS, AT, CC, MG are employees of Carelon Research, a wholly owned subsidiary of Elevance Health, which conducts health outcomes research with both internal and external funding, including a variety of private and public entities. XC was an employee of Elevance Health at the time of study conduct. YY was an employee of Carelon Research at the time of study conduct. SH, MG, and JLS are shareholders of Elevance Health. SdR receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a project unrelated to the content of this manuscript and conducts research that is funded by state and federal agencies.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Ruth Hoffman .

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, 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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hoffman, S.R., Gangan, N., Chen, X. et al. A step-by-step guide to causal study design using real-world data. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-024-00333-6

Download citation

Received : 07 December 2023

Revised : 31 May 2024

Accepted : 10 June 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-024-00333-6

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

• Causal inference
• Real-world data
• Confounding
• Non-randomized data
• Bias in pharmacoepidemiology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A Closer Look: Why Is Research Essential at a Children’s Hospital?

Medicine is an ever-changing field. Treatments evolve from basic and translational research, advance to clinical trials and if successful, are introduced into the clinic. But it doesn’t stop there. It can’t. There’s always the potential to get diagnoses sooner, to make treatments more effective and to turn what we learn into a more personalized approach for individual patients.

The ambitions of pediatric researchers are global in scale: Beyond patients at their own hospital, they look to shape national and international standards for pediatric care. These goals are best achieved through the very special relationship between research and clinical care. True change comes from an environment that fosters thought and innovation as much as it values treating disease. It comes from a culture of constantly questioning—always searching for better ways to do things.

The following stories showcase researchers who are changing the landscape of pediatric medicine and answering the question: Why is research essential at a children’s hospital?

Because discovery can be fast-tracked to the kids who need it.

The next big medical breakthrough might be taking place right this very minute. But here’s the thing: It may not look anything like a medical breakthrough. That’s because discovery starts with basic research that investigates the mechanisms of pediatric diseases. It can take years before these discoveries lead to therapeutics and more years before these advances make their way into the clinic. That’s why research at a children’s hospital is so crucial. Here, investigators are steeped in a research environment that’s directly informed by patient need. And in this environment, discoveries can benefit patients more quickly.

Meet Laura Perin, PhD , and Stefano Da Sacco, PhD, two scientists in the GOFARR Laboratory for Organ Regenerative Research and Cell Therapeutics in Urology . Drs. Perin and Da Sacco study diseases of the kidney, the body’s main filter for toxins and wastes. “Learning exactly how renal filtration occurs has been difficult,” says Dr. Perin, “because we don’t have a good laboratory model.” This is no small point. Accurate modeling of how human cells work in the body is critical to studying any disease.

Recently, Drs. Perin and Da Sacco developed a revolutionary model in which healthy human kidney cells grow into a filtration barrier, just as they do in the human body. This tool—which fits in the palm of your hand—is much more powerful than the sum of its parts. The device mimics the filtering action of the kidneys. The model has many potential uses, like testing the safety of new medications prior to clinical trials.  

An individual patient’s disease progression can even be monitored by running serum samples through the device, allowing researchers to see how certain factors circulating in the blood affect kidney function. This, in turn, can set the stage for more personalized care.

“Doing this research at a children’s hospital is critical,” says Dr. Da Sacco. There are many reasons for this, including access to healthy and diseased tissue samples for research. But there’s something about being in a pediatric hospital that doesn’t translate to any other lab. “We’re in this environment where people are working on so many different levels to help these kids live longer, healthier lives,” he says. “What better motivation to work hard could there be?”

Because existing treatments can be made better when the people who treat patients also do research.

Leukemia—specifically acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL—has one of the highest survival rates of any cancer. Up to 90% of children are in remission at their five-year follow-up appointment. So why do doctors like Etan Orgel, MD, MS , choose to work on improving therapies for cancers like this? For one thing, 90% isn’t 100%. “Even though this is the best success rate we’ve ever had in treating leukemia, not every child beats the disease,” says Dr. Orgel. If existing chemotherapies could be made more effective, more patients could go into remission.

Basic and translational research shows that the body’s fat cells can actually get in the way of treatments by shielding cancer cells and making chemotherapy less effective. Based on this knowledge, Dr. Orgel and his team initiated the IDEAL study (Improving Diet and Exercise in ALL). Patients reduce their calorie intake and participate in light exercise during the first phase of chemotherapy. This change alone reduced the risk of detectible cancer cells—known as minimal residual disease—at the end of the first phase of chemotherapy.

What’s more, this reduced risk involves no additional medications or treatments. “These kids are already going through so much during chemotherapy,” says Dr. Orgel. “The goal is to improve their chances without adding in more pills, more side effects and more stress on the body.”

Based on the success of the first phase of the IDEAL study, Dr. Orgel and his team have initiated IDEAL 2, which is currently enrolling patients across the United States.

When asked why it’s important to conduct research at a children’s hospital, he says that there would be no other way. “Children aren’t just small adults, and we can’t treat their cancers the same way,” he says. Pediatric cancers are often very different from adult cancers, and treatments required are different, too. This necessitates special research. “Unfortunately, because pediatric cancer is relatively rare, it is underfunded and under-resourced,” says Dr. Orgel. “Children’s hospitals play a crucial role in bridging this gap. The goal is to improve their chances without adding in more pills, more side effects and more stress on the body.”  

Because sometimes, the clinic is where the most pressing research questions—and solutions—are born.

Jesse Berry, MD , didn’t set out to do research. She went to medical school so she could help children in need. After all, she says doctors were quite impactful in her own upbringing. But help comes in many forms, and in Dr. Berry’s case, help turned out to be discovering a better way to diagnose retinoblastoma. This cancer—which develops at the back of the eye and can lead to blindness—has always been a problem to diagnose.

“You can’t biopsy it like other cancer,” she explains. “Performing the biopsy can help the cancer spread.” Instead, doctors must rely on imaging to diagnose the disease. When it comes to retinoblastoma, arriving at a definitive diagnosis sooner could mean saving a child’s vision.

Enter Dr. Berry, the A. Linn Murphree, MD, Chair in Ocular Oncology, whose drive and curiosity led her to think outside the box. She uncovered a way to find genetic material from the tumor in the aqueous humor, the fluid available at the front of the eye. This method (the liquid biopsy) allows clinicians to diagnose retinoblastoma more quickly and more accurately—on the molecular level. Dr. Berry’s research shows that the genetic information coming from the aqueous humor can actually help doctors predict which treatment a child might best respond to. Personalized medicine like this leads to better, more individualized care.

Dr. Berry’s discovery will have an impact beyond the patients she sees. The National Cancer Institute’s Pediatric Match program aims to better understand genetic alterations in all known pediatric cancers. Retinoblastoma—being rare and poorly understood on the genetic level—is not in this data repository. But that will likely change very soon.

This discovery wouldn’t exist if Dr. Berry wasn’t at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, which is one of the largest referral centers for pediatric eye cancers in the western United States. As a clinician, she grew frustrated with the limitations in diagnosis. This led her to study the problem and work toward a solution. “If I wasn’t seeing patients every day who needed something better,” she says, “this research would not have happened.”

Because who better than a pediatric surgeon to make care after surgery safer and more effective?

If Lorraine Kelley-Quon, MD, MSHS , were a chess player, she’d be the type to think multiple moves ahead. Although she’s a pediatric surgeon, she not only focuses on the immediate medical needs of her patients, but she also thinks about how to improve children’s recovery after surgery.

“My work extends beyond surgery to the child or adolescent healing at home,” she says. Dr. Kelley-Quon is making sure pain management is not only effective, but also safe.

While people don’t tend to think the opioid epidemic affects children and adolescents, it absolutely does, she says. Prescription opioid misuse and abuse in teens continues, due in part to the frequent prescribing of opioids after surgery. A few decades ago, opioids were rarely given to children for pain. Fast forward to 2018, when a staggering 1 in 10 adolescents were prescribed opioids. Along with continued sharing and recreational use of prescription opioids, there is an upward trend of teen deaths due to opioid-related overdose. To call today’s opioid problem a crisis is not hyperbolic.

It’s understandable that potential risks of pain meds are upstaged when families are managing something as big as their child’s surgery. Although opioids can help a child safely recover after surgery, they should be prescribed judiciously and not necessarily as the default when managing a patient’s pain. This is why Dr. Kelley-Quon led a team of health care providers and community advocates to establish the first-ever guidelines on the safe use of opioids in children.

“It’s not that opioids should never be prescribed,” she says. “We just want it to be done in a thoughtful and consistent way to minimize risks and maximize recovery.”

Eventually, we may see policy changes regarding prescription of opioids. For now, Dr. Kelley-Quon is laying the groundwork. And it wouldn’t be possible anywhere else.

“Being at a children’s hospital means thinking about one patient at a time,” she says, “focusing on each family with everything I have. But sometimes it also means thinking bigger—not only for the safety of our patients but for the safety of a child’s community, and for children across the country and beyond. It’s up to us and that’s why we work here.”

Learn about The Saban Research Institute at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Related content

CHLA Researcher to Lead First-Ever International Liquid Biopsy Retinoblastoma Study

Study will investigate the use of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and determining disease severity.

Looking Ahead: A New Frontier in Retinoblastoma

Opioids, Methadone and Babies

A Children’s Hospital Los Angeles study shows that methadone use following surgery in infants can increase hospital stay and delay recovery.

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

ADHD indicates attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD, cardiovascular disease.

a Controls were derived from the same base cohort as the cases; thus, a case with a later date of CVD diagnosis could potentially serve as a control for another case in the study.

Crude odds ratios (ORs) were based on cases and controls matched on age, sex, and calendar time. Adjusted ORs (AORs) were based on cases and controls matched on age, sex, and calendar time and adjusted for country of birth, educational level, somatic comorbidities (type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and sleep disorders), and psychiatric comorbidities (anxiety disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, eating disorders, intellectual disability, personality disorders, schizophrenia, and substance use disorders).

The solid lines represent the adjusted odds ratios, and the shaded areas represent the 95% CIs. In restricted cubic splines analysis, knots were placed at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of ADHD medication use.

eTable 1. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Codes from the Swedish National Inpatient Register

eTable 2. Type of Cardiovascular Disease in Cases

eTable 3. Risk of CVD Associated With ADHD Medication Use Across Different Average Defined Daily Doses

eTable 4. Risk of CVD Associated With Cumulative Duration of Use of Different Types of ADHD Medications

eTable 5. Sensitivity Analyses of CVD Risk Associated With Cumulative Use of ADHD Medications, Based On Different Cohort, Exposure, and Outcome Definitions

eFigure. Risk of CVD Associated With Cumulative Use of ADHD Medications, Stratified by Sex

Data Sharing Statement

• Long-Term ADHD Medications and Cardiovascular Disease Risk JAMA Medical News in Brief December 26, 2023 Emily Harris
• Long-Term Cardiovascular Effects of Medications for ADHD—Balancing Benefits and Risks of Treatment JAMA Psychiatry Editorial February 1, 2024 Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD; Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Zhang L , Li L , Andell P, et al. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medications and Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases. JAMA Psychiatry. 2024;81(2):178–187. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4294

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medications and Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases

• 1 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
• 2 Unit of Cardiology, Heart and Vascular Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
• 3 School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
• 4 Department of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington
• 5 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington
• Editorial Long-Term Cardiovascular Effects of Medications for ADHD—Balancing Benefits and Risks of Treatment Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD; Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD JAMA Psychiatry
• Medical News in Brief Long-Term ADHD Medications and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Emily Harris JAMA

Question   Is long-term use of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)?

Findings   In this case-control study of 278 027 individuals in Sweden aged 6 to 64 years who had an incident ADHD diagnosis or ADHD medication dispensation, longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with an increased risk of CVD, particularly hypertension and arterial disease, compared with nonuse.

Meaning   Findings of this study suggest that long-term exposure to ADHD medications was associated with an increased risk of CVD; therefore, the potential risks and benefits of long-term ADHD medication use should be carefully weighed.

Importance   Use of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications has increased substantially over the past decades. However, the potential risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear.

Objective   To assess the association between long-term use of ADHD medication and the risk of CVD.

Design, Setting, and Participants   This case-control study included individuals in Sweden aged 6 to 64 years who received an incident diagnosis of ADHD or ADHD medication dispensation between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2020. Data on ADHD and CVD diagnoses and ADHD medication dispensation were obtained from the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, respectively. Cases included individuals with ADHD and an incident CVD diagnosis (ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertension, heart failure, arrhythmias, thromboembolic disease, arterial disease, and other forms of heart disease). Incidence density sampling was used to match cases with up to 5 controls without CVD based on age, sex, and calendar time. Cases and controls had the same duration of follow-up.

Exposure   Cumulative duration of ADHD medication use up to 14 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures   The primary outcome was incident CVD. The association between CVD and cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was measured using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs.

Results   Of 278 027 individuals with ADHD aged 6 to 64 years, 10 388 with CVD were identified (median [IQR] age, 34.6 [20.0-45.7] years; 6154 males [59.2%]) and matched with 51 672 control participants without CVD (median [IQR] age, 34.6 [19.8-45.6] years; 30 601 males [59.2%]). Median (IQR) follow-up time in both groups was 4.1 (1.9-6.8) years. Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with an increased risk of CVD compared with nonuse (0 to ≤1 year: AOR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.93-1.06]; 1 to ≤2 years: AOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18]; 2 to ≤3 years: AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.25]; 3 to ≤5 years: AOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.17-1.39]; and >5 years: AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.12-1.36]). Longer cumulative ADHD medication use was associated with an increased risk of hypertension (eg, 3 to ≤5 years: AOR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.51-1.97] and >5 years: AOR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.55-2.08]) and arterial disease (eg, 3 to ≤5 years: AOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.11-2.45] and >5 years: AOR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.96-2.32]). Across the 14-year follow-up, each 1-year increase of ADHD medication use was associated with a 4% increased risk of CVD (AOR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), with a larger increase in risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use (AOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]) and stable risk over the remaining follow-up. Similar patterns were observed in children and youth (aged <25 years) and adults (aged ≥25 years).

Conclusions and Relevance   This case-control study found that long-term exposure to ADHD medications was associated with an increased risk of CVDs, especially hypertension and arterial disease. These findings highlight the importance of carefully weighing potential benefits and risks when making treatment decisions about long-term ADHD medication use. Clinicians should regularly and consistently monitor cardiovascular signs and symptoms throughout the course of treatment.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder characterized by developmentally inappropriate inattentiveness, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. 1 , 2 Pharmacological therapy, including both stimulants and nonstimulants, is recommended as the first-line treatment for ADHD in many countries. 1 , 3 The use of ADHD medication has increased greatly in both children and adults during the past decades. 4 Although the effectiveness of ADHD medications has been demonstrated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and other studies, 5 , 6 concerns remain regarding their potential cardiovascular safety. 7 Meta-analyses of RCTs have reported increases in heart rate and blood pressure associated with both stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medications. 5 , 7 - 9

As RCTs typically evaluate short-term effects (average treatment duration of 75 days), 7 it remains uncertain whether and to what extent the increases in blood pressure and heart rate associated with ADHD medication lead to clinically significant cardiovascular disease (CVD) over time. Longitudinal observational studies 10 - 12 examining the association between ADHD medication use and serious cardiovascular outcomes have emerged in recent years, but the findings have been mixed. A meta-analysis 13 of observational studies found no statistically significant association between ADHD medication and risk of CVD. However, the possibility of a modest risk increase cannot be ruled out due to several methodological limitations in these studies, including confounding by indication, immortal time bias, and prevalent user bias. Additionally, most of these studies had an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years. 13 , 14 Thus, evidence regarding the long-term cardiovascular risk of ADHD medication use is still lacking.

Examining the long-term cardiovascular risk associated with ADHD medicine use is clinically important given that individuals with a diagnosis of ADHD, regardless of whether they receive treatment, face an elevated risk of CVD. 15 Additionally, a substantial proportion of young individuals with ADHD continues to have impairing symptoms in adulthood, 16 necessitating prolonged use of ADHD medication. Notably, studies have indicated a rising trend in the long-term use of ADHD medications, with approximately half of individuals using ADHD medication for over 5 years. 17 Furthermore, evidence is lacking regarding how cardiovascular risk may vary based on factors such as type of CVD, type of ADHD medication, age, and sex. 13 Therefore, there is a need for long-term follow-up studies to address these knowledge gaps and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the cardiovascular risks associated with ADHD medication use. This information is also crucial from a public health perspective, particularly due to the increasing number of individuals receiving ADHD medications worldwide. 4

This study aimed to assess the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication up to 14 years and the risk of CVD by using nationwide health registers in Sweden. We hypothesized that longer cumulative use of ADHD medication would be associated with increased CVD risk. In addition, we aimed to examine whether the associations differ across types of ADHD medication, types of CVD, sex, and age groups.

We used data from several Swedish nationwide registers linked through unique personal identification numbers. 18 Diagnoses were obtained from the National Inpatient Register, 19 which contains data on inpatient diagnoses since 1973 and outpatient diagnoses since 2001. Information on prescribed medications was retrieved from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, which contains all dispensed medications in Sweden since July 2005 and includes information on drug identity based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification, 20 dispensing dates, and free-text medication prescriptions. Socioeconomic factors were obtained from the Longitudinal Integrated Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market studies. 21 Information on death was retrieved from the Swedish Cause of Death Register, 22 which contains information on all deaths since 1952. The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed patient consent is not required for register-based studies in Sweden. The study followed the Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data–Pharmacoepidemiological Research ( RECORD-PE ) guideline. 23

We conducted a nested case-control study of all individuals residing in Sweden aged 6 to 64 years who received an incident diagnosis of ADHD or ADHD medication dispensation 15 between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2020. The diagnosis of ADHD ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ ICD-10 ] code F90) was identified from the National Inpatient Register. Incident ADHD medication dispensation was identified from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and was defined as a dispensation after at least 18 months without any ADHD medication dispensation. 24 Baseline (ie, cohort entry) was defined as the date of incident ADHD diagnosis or ADHD medication dispensation, whichever came first. Individuals with ADHD medication prescriptions for indications other than ADHD 25 and individuals who emigrated, died, or had a history of CVD before baseline were excluded from the study. The cohort was followed until the case index date (ie, the date of CVD diagnosis), death, migration, or the study end date (December 31, 2020), whichever came first.

Within the study cohort, we identified cases as individuals with an incident diagnosis of any CVD (including ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, hypertension, heart failure, arrhythmias, thromboembolic disease, arterial disease, and other forms of heart disease; eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ) during follow-up. For each case, the date of their CVD diagnosis was assigned as the index date. Using incidence density sampling, 26 up to 5 controls without CVD were randomly selected for each case from the base cohort of individuals with ADHD. The matching criteria included age, sex, and calendar time, ensuring that cases and controls had the same duration of follow-up from baseline to index date. Controls were eligible for inclusion if they were alive, living in Sweden, and free of CVD at the time when their matched case received a diagnosis of CVD, with the index date set as the date of CVD diagnosis of the matched case ( Figure 1 ). Controls were derived from the same base cohort as the cases. Thus, a case with a later date of CVD diagnosis could potentially serve as a control for another case in the study. 26

The main exposure was cumulative duration of ADHD medication use, which included all ADHD medications approved in Sweden during the study period, including stimulants (methylphenidate [ATC code N06BA04], amphetamine [ATC code N06BA01], dexamphetamine [ATC code N06BA02], and lisdexamfetamine [ATC code N06BA12]) as well as nonstimulants (atomoxetine [ATC code N06BA09] and guanfacine [ATC code C02AC02]). Duration of ADHD medication use was derived from a validated algorithm that estimates treatment duration from free text in prescription records. 25 The cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was calculated by summing all days covered by ADHD medication between baseline and 3 months prior to the index date. The last 3 months before the index date were excluded to reduce reverse causation, as clinicians’ perception of potential cardiovascular risks may influence ADHD medication prescription. This time window was chosen because routine psychiatric practice in Sweden limits a prescription to a maximum 3 months at a time. 27 Individuals with follow-up of less than 3 months were excluded.

We conducted conditional logistic regression analyses to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the associations between cumulative durations of ADHD medication use and incident CVD. Crude ORs were adjusted for all matching variables (age, sex, and calendar time) by design. Adjusted ORs (AORs) were additionally controlled for country of birth (Sweden vs other), highest educational level (primary or lower secondary, upper secondary, postsecondary or postgraduate, or unknown; individuals aged <16 years were included as a separate category), and diagnoses of somatic (type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and sleep disorders) and psychiatric comorbidities (anxiety disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, depressive disorder, eating disorders, intellectual disability, personality disorders, schizophrenia, and substance use disorders; eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ) before baseline. The association between cumulative ADHD medication use and incident CVD was assessed using both continuous and categorical measures (no ADHD medication use, 0 to ≤1, 1 to ≤2, 2 to ≤3, 3 to ≤5, and >5 years). To capture potential nonlinear associations, we used restricted cubic splines to examine ADHD medication use as a continuous measure throughout follow-up. 28 The associations were examined in the full sample and stratified by age at baseline, that is, children or youth (<25 years old) and adults (≥25 years old). Furthermore, to evaluate the association with dosage of ADHD medication, we estimated the risk of CVD associated with each 1-year increase in use of ADHD medication across different dosage groups categorized by the average defined daily dose (DDD; for instance, 1 DDD of methylphenidate equals 30 mg) during follow-up. 29

In subgroup analyses, we examined the associations between ADHD medication use and specific CVDs, including arrhythmias, arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and thromboembolic disease (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). Additionally, we investigated the associations with CVD risk for the most commonly prescribed ADHD medications in Sweden, ie, methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, and atomoxetine, while adjusting for other ADHD medication use. We also examined sex-specific associations.

To further examine the robustness of our findings, we conducted 4 sensitivity analyses. First, we restricted the sample to ever users of ADHD medication to reduce unmeasured confounding between ADHD medication users and nonusers. Second, we assessed ADHD medication exposure over the entire follow-up period without excluding the 3 months prior to the index date. Third, to capture fatal cardiovascular events, we additionally included death by CVD in the outcome definition. Finally, we constructed a conditional logistic regression model that adjusted for propensity scores of ADHD medication use. Data management was performed using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) and all analyses were performed using R, version 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

The study cohort consisted of 278 027 individuals with ADHD aged 6 to 64 years. The incidence rate of CVD was 7.34 per 1000 person-years. After applying exclusion criteria and matching, the analysis included 10 388 cases (median [IQR] age at baseline, 34.6 (20.0-45.7) years; 6154 males [59.2%] and 4234 females [40.8%]) and 51 672 matched controls (median [IQR] age at baseline, 34.6 [19.8-45.6] years; 30 601 males [59.2%] and 21 071 females [40.8%]) ( Figure 1 and Table 1 ). Median (IQR) follow-up in both groups was 4.1 (1.9-6.8) years. Among the controls, 3363 had received a CVD diagnosis after their index dates. The most common types of CVD in cases were hypertension (4210 cases [40.5%]) and arrhythmias (1310 cases [12.6%]; eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ). Table 1 presents the sociodemographic information and somatic and psychiatric comorbidities in cases and controls. In general, cases had higher rates of somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and a lower level of educational attainment compared with controls.

A similar proportion of cases (83.9%) and controls (83.5%) used ADHD medication during follow-up, with methylphenidate being the most commonly dispensed type, followed by atomoxetine and lisdexamfetamine. Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with an increased risk of CVD compared with nonuse (0 to ≤1 year: AOR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.93-1.06]; 1 to ≤2 years: AOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18]; 2 to ≤3 years: AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.25]; 3 to ≤5 years: AOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.17-1.39]; and >5 years: AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.12-1.36]) ( Figure 2 ). The restricted cubic spline model suggested a nonlinear association, with the AORs increasing rapidly for the first 3 cumulative years of ADHD medication use and then becoming stable thereafter ( Figure 3 ). Throughout the entire follow-up, each 1-year increase in the use of ADHD medication was associated with a 4% increased risk of CVD (AOR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), and the corresponding increase for the first 3 years was 8% (AOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]). We observed similar results when examining children or youth and adults separately ( Figure 2 ). The restricted cubic spline model suggested a similar nonlinear association, with higher AORs in children or youth than in adults, but the 95% CIs largely overlapped ( Figure 3 ). Furthermore, similar associations were observed for females and males (eFigure in Supplement 1 ). The dosage analysis showed that the risk of CVD associated with each 1 year of ADHD medication use increased with higher average DDDs. The risk was found to be statistically significant only among individuals with a mean dose of at least 1.5 times the DDD (eTable 3 in Supplement 1 ). For example, among individuals with a mean DDD of 1.5 to 2 or less (eg, for methylphenidate, 45 to ≤60 mg), each 1-year increase in ADHD medication use was associated with a 4% increased risk of CVD (AOR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02-1.05]). Among individuals with a mean DDD >2 (eg, for methylphenidate >60 mg), each 1-year increase in ADHD medication use was associated with 5% increased risk of CVD (AOR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03-1.06]).

When examining the risk for specific CVDs, we found that long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk of hypertension (AOR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.51-1.97] for 3 to ≤5 years; AOR, 1.80 [95% CI 1.55-2.08] for >5 years) ( Table 2 ), as well as arterial disease (AOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.11-2.45] for 3 to ≤5 years; AOR, 1.49 [95% CI 0.96-2.32] for >5 years). However, we did not observe any statistically significant increased risk for arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease ( Table 2 ). Furthermore, long-term use of methylphenidate (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk of CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤5 years; AOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31]) for >5 years; eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ). Compared with no use, lisdexamfetamine was also associated with an elevated risk of CVD (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤3 years; AOR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for >3 years), while the AOR for atomoxetine use was significant only for the first year of use (1.07 [95% CI 1.01-1.13]; eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ).

In sensitivity analyses, we observed a similar pattern of estimates when the analysis was restricted to ever users of ADHD medications. Significantly increased risk of CVD was found when comparing ADHD medication use for 1 year or less with use for 3 to 5 or less years (AOR, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.18-1.38) or for use for more than 5 years (AOR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.36]) (eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ). When assessing ADHD medication use across the entire follow-up period, and compared with no use, the pattern of estimates was similar to the main analysis (3 to ≤5 years: AOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]; >5 years: AOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.14-1.37]) (eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ). The analysis that included cardiovascular death as a combined outcome also had results similar to the main analysis. Moreover, when adjusting for propensity scores of ADHD medication use, the findings remained consistent (eTable 5 in Supplement 1 ).

This large, nested case-control study found an increased risk of incident CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use, and the risk increased with increasing duration of ADHD medication use. This association was statistically significant both for children and youth and for adults, as well as for females and males. The primary contributors to the association between long-term ADHD medication use and CVD risk was an increased risk of hypertension and arterial disease. Increased risk was also associated with stimulant medication use.

We found individuals with long-term ADHD medication use had an increased risk of incident CVD in a dose-response manner in the first 3 years of cumulative ADHD medication use. To our knowledge, few previous studies have investigated the association between long-term ADHD medication use and the risk of CVD with follow-up of more than 2 years. 13 The only 2 prior studies with long-term follow-up (median, 9.5 and 7.9 years 30 , 31 ) found an average 2-fold and 3-fold increased risk of CVD with ADHD medication use compared with nonuse during the study period, yet 1 of the studies 30 included only children, and participants in the other study 31 were not the general population of individuals with ADHD (including those with ADHD and long QT syndrome). Furthermore, both studies were subject to prevalent user bias. Results from the current study suggest that the CVD risk associated with ADHD medication use (23% increased risk for >5 years of ADHD medication use compared with nonuse) is lower than previously reported. 30 , 31 Furthermore, we observed that the increased risk stabilized after the first several years of medication use and persisted throughout the 14-year follow-up period.

The association between ADHD medication use and CVD was significant for hypertension and arterial disease, while no significant association was observed with other types of cardiovascular events. To our knowledge, only 1 previous study 12 has examined the association between ADHD medication use and clinically diagnosed hypertension, and it found an increased risk, although the increase was not statistically significant. Furthermore, increased blood pressure associated with ADHD medication use has been well documented. 7 , 9 One study 32 found that blood pressure was mainly elevated during the daytime, suggesting that the cardiovascular system may recover at night. However, the cross-sectional nature of that study cannot preclude a long-term risk of clinically diagnosed hypertension associated with ADHD medication use. We also identified an increased risk for arterial disease. To date, no previous study has explored the association between ADHD medication use and arterial disease. A few studies have reported that ADHD medication may be associated with changes in serum lipid profiles, but the results were not consistent. 33 , 34 Further research is needed on the potential implications of ADHD medications for individuals’ lipid profiles. We did not observe any association between ADHD medication use and the risk of arrhythmias. A recent systematic review of observational studies of ADHD medication use reported an elevated risk of arrhythmias, but the finding was not statistically significant. 13 A review of RCTs also found that the use of stimulants was associated with an average increase in heart rate of 5.7 beats/min, 9 but no evidence of prolonged QT interval or tachycardia was found based on electrocardiograms. 7 Additionally, it is worth noting that some individuals receiving ADHD medications might be prescribed antiarrhythmic β-blockers to alleviate palpitation symptoms, thus potentially attenuating an association between ADHD medications and arrhythmias. Nevertheless, the absence of an association between ADHD medication use and clinically diagnosed arrhythmias in the present study does not rule out an increased risk for mild arrhythmias or subclinical symptoms, as palpitations and sinus tachycardia are not routinely coded as arrhythmia diagnoses. Further research is necessary to replicate our findings.

Regarding types of ADHD medication, findings of the present study suggest that increasing cumulative durations of methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine use were associated with incident CVD, while the associations for atomoxetine were statistically significant only for the first year of use. Previous RCTs have reported increased blood pressure and heart rate with methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, and atomoxetine, 5 , 35 , 36 but the mechanisms behind these adverse effects are still a topic of debate; there might be differences in cardiovascular adverse effects in stimulants vs nonstimulants. 37

We found that the association between cumulative duration of ADHD medication use and CVD was similar in females and males. Previous investigations exploring sex-specific association found higher point estimates in females, although the differences were not statistically significant. 13 Research has indicated that females diagnosed with ADHD may demonstrate different comorbidity patterns and potentially have different responses to stimulant medications compared with males. 38 - 40 Therefore, additional studies are needed to explore and better understand the potential sex-specific differences in cardiovascular responses to ADHD medications.

A strength of this study is that data on ADHD medication prescriptions and CVD diagnoses were recorded prospectively, so the results were not affected by recall bias. The findings should, however, be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, our approach for identification of patients with CVD was based on recorded diagnoses and there could be under ascertainment of cardiovascular diagnoses in the registers used. This means that some controls may have had undiagnosed CVD that did not yet require medical care, which would tend to underestimate associations between ADHD medication use and CVD. Second, exposure misclassification may have occurred if patients did not take their medication as prescribed. This misclassification, if nondifferential, would tend to reduce ORs such that the estimates we observed were conservative. Third, while we accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, we could not prove causality. It is possible that the association observed might have been affected by time-varying confounders. For example, other psychotropic medications and lifestyle factors could have affected both ADHD medication use and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. 41 , 42 Confounding by ADHD severity is also a potential factor to consider, as individuals with more severe ADHD symptoms may have more comorbidities and a less healthy lifestyle, which could affect the risk of CVD. Fourth, the study did not examine the risk of CVD among individuals with preexisting CVD. Individuals with preexisting CVD represent a distinct clinical group that requires careful monitoring; thus, evaluating the risk among them necessitates a different study design that carefully considers the potential impact of prior knowledge and periodic monitoring. Finally, the results by type of ADHD medication and type of CVD need to be replicated by studies with larger sample sizes.

The results of this population-based case-control study with a longitudinal follow-up of 14 years suggested that long-term use of ADHD medication was associated with an increased risk of CVD, especially hypertension and arterial disease, and the risk was higher for stimulant medications. These findings highlight the importance of carefully weighing potential benefits and risks when making treatment decisions on long-term ADHD medication use. Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring patients, particularly among those receiving higher doses, and consistently assess signs and symptoms of CVD throughout the course of treatment. Monitoring becomes even more crucial considering the increasing number of individuals engaging in long-term use of ADHD medication.

Accepted for Publication: August 29, 2023.

Published Online: November 22, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4294

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2023 Zhang L et al. JAMA Psychiatry .

Corresponding Authors: Zheng Chang, PhD ( [email protected] ) and Le Zhang, PhD ( [email protected] ), Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 12A, 171 65 Stockholm, Sweden.

Author Contributions: Dr Zhang and Prof Chang had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Zhang, Johnell, Larsson, Chang.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Zhang, Li, Andell, Garcia-Argibay, Quinn, D'Onofrio, Brikell, Kuja-Halkola, Lichtenstein, Johnell, Chang.

Drafting of the manuscript: Zhang.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Zhang, Li.

Obtained funding: Larsson, Chang.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Garcia-Argibay, D'Onofrio, Kuja-Halkola, Lichtenstein, Chang.

Supervision: Andell, Lichtenstein, Johnell, Larsson, Chang.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Larsson reported receiving grants from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Evolan, and Medici Medical Ltd outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (2019-01172 and 2022-01111) (Dr Chang) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 965381 (Dr Larsson).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Skip to Content

• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff
• University of Denver
• Ritchie School

Marketing Meets Science in Grad Student-Researcher Collaboration

Connor mokrzycki, students in the professional mba program get real-world experience helping a ritchie school professor market his social robot..

Students in the Daniels College of Business are no strangers to using case studies to learn, but Michael Myers, associate teaching professor and academic director of the MBA program, decided to take it a step further: Why not give students the chance to collaborate with DU researchers on marketing real-world products created right here on campus?

For two students in the Professional Master of Business Administration (PMBA) program , that led to working with Mohammad Mahoor, professor of electrical and computer engineering in the Ritchie School of Engineering and Computer Science , to help him market a robot he developed to benefit children with autism spectrum disorders.

Much of Mahoor’s research focuses on computer vision, machine learning and algorithm development with the goal of developing social robots—automatons that can socially interact with humans, potentially offering a wide range of beneficial uses. Previously, Mahoor and his fellow researchers developed Ryan, a companion robot designed to assist patients with Alzheimer’s .

When Myers partnered with Mahoor to bring the project into his classroom, it drew the attention of Jacquelin Lalor, who has a background in school nursing, and Ashley Hill, assistant director of Equity Labs at DU. Both were immediately interested, says Lalor. “ I think it was a perfect fit . It touched on some things that were important to us.”

The two were tasked with developing a marketing plan and began by researching the existing market, potential demand and competing products, among numerous other factors. “Then, we did a lot of research around the audience—who uses the product that you're developing the marketing plan for? The user drives a majority of the way that the rest of the plan is set up,” says Hill. With a thorough understanding of the market, the product and the audience, they developed and presented a go-to-market plan in the spring quarter.

The opportunity to do real, meaningful work with researchers across the disciplines made the project even more impactful, Lalor says. “The integration and collaboration between different segments in the university was really exciting as an MBA student,” she says. “We do a lot of case studies, but this is personal. We met these people; we know what their work is—that's very different than reading and responding to a case study.” And for Hill, balancing the needs of a multi-faceted audience and user base was both interesting and challenging. Compared to other coursework, she says, “this was very multi-dimensional in a lot of different ways.”

Beyond gaining practical skills and real-world experience, Hill adds, collaborating with faculty whose research is focused on the public good was rewarding. “They want to help people and do research that is meaningful, important and generative. They’re looking for a better future. It was really refreshing and inspiring for me to be in conversation with this internal team and with Dr. Mahoor’s folks and to know that that alignment is out there,” she says.

For Myers, the project was part of a push to provide students opportunities to work with intellectual property, gaining valuable, real-world skills and knowledge, which he says is crucial for preparing students for their careers. “In the business school, we fight to bring reality in—because abstraction doesn't help,” he says. “That's what this type of project brings to students.”

Myers hopes to continue providing his students with these types of experiences. “The buffet is open. We would like [faculty] to come and bring projects in—and we will help you execute,” he says. “If you have a need, I've got a small army of brilliant students who will do great work.”

Start Your Application

Undergraduate applicants.

The Common App is a universal application that can be sent to many schools, including the University of Denver.

First-Year Students Transfer Students

Graduate Applicants

Go to the graduate admission application to submit your information. For information on admission requirements, visit the graduate academic programs page and locate your program of interest.

Graduate Application

Explore Programs

Graduate Academic Programs

Take The First Step

Undergraduates.

Contact Undergraduate Admission

Request Info

Request Graduate Program Information

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• Does the case represent an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• Does the case provide important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• Does the case challenge and offer a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in practice. A case may offer you an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to the study a case in order to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• Does the case provide an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why was this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the research problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would include summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to study the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Political Typology Quiz

Where do you fit in the political typology, are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Voice of the Discipline

News and publications.

Access AHA news and publications supporting the work of historians.

Stay up-to-date with the AHA

June 25, 2024

AHA Members Co-author Article on SCOTUS and Gun Control

AHA members Holly Brewer (Univ. of Maryland) and Laura F. Edwards (Princeton Univ.) have co-authored an article for Washington Monthly…

June 24, 2024

Action Alert Opposing Ohio SB 83

June 21, 2024

AHA Signs On to CIE Letter Urging HEA-Title VI Funding for FY 2025

June 18, 2024

Welcome to the AHA’s New Website

The American Historical Review is the flagship journal of the AHA and the journal of record for the historical discipline in the United States, bringing together scholarship from every major field of historical study.

Perspectives on History is the newsmagazine of the AHA and is the principal source for news and information about the discipline of history. Since 1962, Perspectives has promoted our work by publishing articles and commentary on all aspects of the historical discipline.

History in Focus Podcast

Environmental Crisis and Recovery

Collaborative history + revisiting marion thompson wright, aha booklets.

The AHA publishes booklets that address a diversity of topics to serve the needs of history students and historians in all professions. Our publications include career advice for history graduates, overviews and syntheses of current historical topics and fields, and guides to teaching and learning in history.

For the Press

The AHA is pleased to provide resources for journalists and press. If you are a member of the media and would like to submit a request for a referral or interview, please email [email protected] . Please provide any pertinent deadlines and we will do our best to accommodate your request. The AHA can find you a historian for any topic, and assists with dozens of inquiries each year.

The AHA encourages the reading of history with periodic reading challenges.

Permission to Use AHA Copyrighted Material

All material published by the American Historical Association in any medium is protected by copyright.

Join the AHA

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.