Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Public Health | Opinion

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

Authors: Sara Paparini, Judith Green, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jamie Murdoch, Mark Petticrew, Trish Greenhalgh, Benjamin Hanckel, Sara Shaw

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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

Main body

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

Conclusion

Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Diez Roux AV. Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1627–34.CrossRef Diez Roux AV. Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1627–34.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ogilvie D, Mitchell R, Mutrie N, M P, Platt S. Evaluating health effects of transport interventions: methodologic case study. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:118–126. Ogilvie D, Mitchell R, Mutrie N, M P, Platt S. Evaluating health effects of transport interventions: methodologic case study. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:118–126.
3.
go back to reference Walshe C. The evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care: an exploration of the potential of case study research strategies. Palliat Med. 2011;25(8):774–81.CrossRef Walshe C. The evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care: an exploration of the potential of case study research strategies. Palliat Med. 2011;25(8):774–81.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Woolcock M. Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation. 2013;19:229–48.CrossRef Woolcock M. Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation. 2013;19:229–48.CrossRef
5.
6.
go back to reference Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.CrossRef Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Salway S, Green J. Towards a critical complex systems approach to public health. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):523–4.CrossRef Salway S, Green J. Towards a critical complex systems approach to public health. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):523–4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bonell C, Warren E, Fletcher A. Realist trials and the testing of context-mechanism-outcome configurations: a response to Van Belle et al. Trials. 2016;17:478.CrossRef Bonell C, Warren E, Fletcher A. Realist trials and the testing of context-mechanism-outcome configurations: a response to Van Belle et al. Trials. 2016;17:478.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16:29.CrossRef Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16:29.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Evans RE, Craig P, Hoddinott P, Littlecott H, Moore L, Murphy S, et al. When and how do ‘effective’ interventions need to be adapted and/or re-evaluated in new contexts? The need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(6):481–2.CrossRef Evans RE, Craig P, Hoddinott P, Littlecott H, Moore L, Murphy S, et al. When and how do ‘effective’ interventions need to be adapted and/or re-evaluated in new contexts? The need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(6):481–2.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Shoveller J. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(5):487–500.CrossRef Shoveller J. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Public Health. 2016;26(5):487–500.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):37.CrossRef Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):37.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Rosengarten M, Savransky M. A careful biomedicine? Generalization and abstraction in RCTs. Crit Public Health. 2019;29(2):181–91.CrossRef Rosengarten M, Savransky M. A careful biomedicine? Generalization and abstraction in RCTs. Crit Public Health. 2019;29(2):181–91.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Green J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Steinbach R, Goodman A, Jones A, et al. Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: a case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):391–406.CrossRef Green J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Steinbach R, Goodman A, Jones A, et al. Integrating quasi-experimental and inductive designs in evaluation: a case study of the impact of free bus travel on public health. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):391–406.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Canguilhem G. The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books; 1991. (1949). Canguilhem G. The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books; 1991. (1949).
19.
go back to reference Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.
20.
go back to reference King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research: Princeton University Press; 1994. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research: Princeton University Press; 1994.
21.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef
22.
24.
go back to reference Craig P, Di Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, E M, White M, Group CCGA. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2018. Craig P, Di Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, E M, White M, Group CCGA. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2018.
25.
go back to reference Grant RL, Hood R. Complex systems, explanation and policy: implications of the crisis of replication for public health research. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):525–32.CrossRef Grant RL, Hood R. Complex systems, explanation and policy: implications of the crisis of replication for public health research. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(5):525–32.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Mahoney J. Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociol Methods Res. 2000;4:387–424.CrossRef Mahoney J. Strategies of causal inference in small-N analysis. Sociol Methods Res. 2000;4:387–424.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Turner S. Major system change: a management and organisational research perspective. In: Rosalind Raine, Ray Fitzpatrick, Helen Barratt, Gywn Bevan, Nick Black, Ruth Boaden, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) 2016. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04160. Turner S. Major system change: a management and organisational research perspective. In: Rosalind Raine, Ray Fitzpatrick, Helen Barratt, Gywn Bevan, Nick Black, Ruth Boaden, et al. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16) 2016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hsdr04160.​
28.
29.
go back to reference Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Thomas J, Green J. Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):252.CrossRef Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Thomas J, Green J. Protocol for a systematic review of the use of qualitative comparative analysis for evaluative questions in public health research. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):252.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Schneider CQ, Wagemann C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 369 p. Schneider CQ, Wagemann C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 369 p.
31.
go back to reference Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12:219–45.CrossRef Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12:219–45.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Tsoukas H. Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. Sage Handb Organ Res Methods. 2009:285–301. Tsoukas H. Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. Sage Handb Organ Res Methods. 2009:285–301.
33.
go back to reference Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995. Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.
34.
go back to reference Mitchell JC. Typicality and the case study. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. Vol. 238241. 1984. Mitchell JC. Typicality and the case study. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. Vol. 238241. 1984.
35.
go back to reference Gerring J. What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(2):341–54.CrossRef Gerring J. What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(2):341–54.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference May C, Mort M, Williams T, F M, Gask L. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697–710. May C, Mort M, Williams T, F M, Gask L. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697–710.
37.
go back to reference McGill E. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):007053.CrossRef McGill E. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):007053.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Hammersley M. So, what are case studies? In: What’s wrong with ethnography? New York: Routledge; 1992. Hammersley M. So, what are case studies? In: What’s wrong with ethnography? New York: Routledge; 1992.
40.
go back to reference Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):100.CrossRef Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):100.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Luck L, Jackson D, Usher K. Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nurs Inq. 2006;13(2):103–9.CrossRef Luck L, Jackson D, Usher K. Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nurs Inq. 2006;13(2):103–9.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods: Sage; 2017. Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods: Sage; 2017.
43.
go back to reference Hyett N, A K, Dickson-Swift V. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2014;9:23606. Hyett N, A K, Dickson-Swift V. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2014;9:23606.
44.
go back to reference Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.CrossRef Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. Bmj. 2016;352. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakley A, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. Bmj. 2016;352.
46.
go back to reference Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual Inq. 2011;17(6):511–21.CrossRef Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual Inq. 2011;17(6):511–21.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Judging the quality of case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 1990;3(1):53–9.CrossRef Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Judging the quality of case study reports. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 1990;3(1):53–9.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218–35.CrossRef Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218–35.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges
Authors
Sara Paparini
Judith Green
Chrysanthi Papoutsi
Jamie Murdoch
Mark Petticrew
Trish Greenhalgh
Benjamin Hanckel
Sara Shaw
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Public Health
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medicine 1/2020 Go to the issue