Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33167974›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2020

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

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sara PapariniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Sara.Paparini@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1909-2481
Judith GreenWellcome Centre for Cultures & Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jamie MurdochSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Mark PetticrewPublic Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicin, London, UK.
Trish GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Benjamin HanckelInstitute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia.
Sara ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014632/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

conclusionWhilst 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.

Indexed as

HumansOrganizational Case StudiesPublic HealthCase studiesComplexityContextEvaluationHealth services researchInterventionsMixed-methodPublic healthQualitative

Identifiers

PMID33167974
PMCPMC7652677

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.