research design of case study

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

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, 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.

Case Study Research

• First Online: 29 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Robert E. White   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-164X 3 &
• Karyn Cooper 4  

1355 Accesses

As a footnote to the previous chapter, there is such a beast known as the ethnographic case study. Ethnographic case study has found its way into this chapter rather than into the previous one because of grammatical considerations. Simply put, the “case study” part of the phrase is the noun (with “case” as an adjective defining what kind of study it is), while the “ethnographic” part of the phrase is an adjective defining the type of case study that is being conducted. As such, the case study becomes the methodology, while the ethnography part refers to a method, mode or approach relating to the development of the study.

The experiential account that we get from a case study or qualitative research of a similar vein is just so necessary. How things happen over time and the degree to which they are subject to personality and how they are only gradually perceived as tolerable or intolerable by the communities and the groups that are involved is so important. Robert Stake, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity . Polity Press.

Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: A critical realist perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8 (4), 278–297.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago School of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research . University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8 (1), 178–191.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Houghton Mifflin.

Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61 (4), 601–632.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design . Sage.

Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation 2 (9) . Retrieved May 28, 2018, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=9

Demetriou, H. (2017). The case study. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based research: A guide for education students (pp. 124–138). Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research . Sage.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420–433). Sage.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods . Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Healy, M. E. (1947). Le Play’s contribution to sociology: His method. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 8 (2), 97–110.

Johansson, R. (2003). Case study methodology. [Keynote speech]. In International Conference “Methodologies in Housing Research.” Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, September 2003 (pp. 1–14).

Klonoski, R. (2013). The case for case studies: Deriving theory from evidence. Journal of Business Case Studies, 9 (31), 261–266.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers . Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 590–601.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G. & E. Wiebe (Eds.) (2010). What is a case study? Encyclopedia of case study research, Volumes I and II. Sage.

National Film Board of Canada. (2012, April). Here at home: In search of the real cost of homelessness . [Web documentary]. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from http://athome.nfb.ca/#/athome/home

Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge . Routledge.

Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305.

Rolls, G. (2005). Classic case studies in psychology . Hodder Education.

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case-Selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61 , 294–308.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis . Guilford Press.

Swanborn, P. G. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Sage.

Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1996). The Polish peasant in Europe and America: A classic work in immigration history . University of Illinois Press.

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 58–65.

Yin, R. K. (1991). Advancing rigorous methodologies : A Review of “Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures….”. Review of Educational Research, 61 (3), 299–305.

Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research, 34 (5) Part II, 1209–1224.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Zaretsky, E. (1996). Introduction. In W. I. Thomas & F. Znaniecki (Eds.), The Polish peasant in Europe and America: A classic work in immigration history (pp. vii–xvii). University of Illinois Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada

Robert E. White

OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Karyn Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. White .

A Case in Case Study Methodology

Christine Benedichte Meyer

Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration

Meyer, C. B. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods 13 (4), 329-352.

The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive view of the case study process from the researcher’s perspective, emphasizing methodological considerations. As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as grounded theory or surveys, there are virtually no specific requirements guiding case research. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach. It is a strength because it allows tailoring the design and data collection procedures to the research questions. On the other hand, this approach has resulted in many poor case studies, leaving it open to criticism, especially from the quantitative field of research. This article argues that there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about the methodological choices one makes. This implies discussing the wide range of decisions concerned with design requirements, data collection procedures, data analysis, and validity and reliability. The approach here is to illustrate these decisions through a particular case study of two mergers in the financial industry in Norway.

In the past few years, a number of books have been published that give useful guidance in conducting qualitative studies (Gummesson 1988; Cassell & Symon 1994; Miles & Huberman 1994; Creswell 1998; Flick 1998; Rossman & Rallis 1998; Bryman & Burgess 1999; Marshall & Rossman 1999; Denzin & Lincoln 2000). One approach often mentioned is the case study (Yin 1989). Case studies are widely used in organizational studies in the social science disciplines of sociology, industrial relations, and anthropology (Hartley 1994). Such a study consists of detailed investigation of one or more organizations, or groups within organizations, with a view to providing an analysis of the context and processes involved in the phenomenon under study.

As opposed to other qualitative or quantitative research strategies, such as grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) or surveys (Nachmias & Nachmias 1981), there are virtually no specific requirements guiding case research. Yin (1989) and Eisenhardt (1989) give useful insights into the case study as a research strategy, but leave most of the design decisions on the table. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach. It is a strength because it allows tailoring the design and data collection procedures to the research questions. On the other hand, this approach has resulted in many poor case studies, leaving it open to criticism, especially from the quantitative field of research (Cook and Campbell 1979). The fact that the case study is a rather loose design implies that there are a number of choices that need to be addressed in a principled way.

Although case studies have become a common research strategy, the scope of methodology sections in articles published in journals is far too limited to give the readers a detailed and comprehensive view of the decisions taken in the particular studies, and, given the format of methodology sections, will remain so. The few books (Yin 1989, 1993; Hamel, Dufour, & Fortin 1993; Stake 1995) and book chapters on case studies (Hartley 1994; Silverman 2000) are, on the other hand, mainly normative and span a broad range of different kinds of case studies. One exception is Pettigrew (1990, 1992), who places the case study in the context of a research tradition (the Warwick process research).

Given the contextual nature of the case study and its strength in addressing contemporary phenomena in real-life contexts, I believe that there is a need for articles that provide a comprehensive overview of the case study process from the researcher’s perspective, emphasizing methodological considerations. This implies addressing the whole range of choices concerning specific design requirements, data collection procedures, data analysis, and validity and reliability.

WHY A CASE STUDY?

Case studies are tailor-made for exploring new processes or behaviors or ones that are little understood (Hartley 1994). Hence, the approach is particularly useful for responding to how and why questions about a contemporary set of events (Leonard-Barton 1990). Moreover, researchers have argued that certain kinds of information can be difficult or even impossible to tackle by means other than qualitative approaches such as the case study (Sykes 1990). Gummesson (1988:76) argues that an important advantage of case study research is the opportunity for a holistic view of the process: “The detailed observations entailed in the case study method enable us to study many different aspects, examine them in relation to each other, view the process within its total environment and also use the researchers’ capacity for ‘verstehen.’ ”

The contextual nature of the case study is illustrated in Yin’s (1993:59) definition of a case study as an empirical inquiry that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context and addresses a situation in which the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”

The key difference between the case study and other qualitative designs such as grounded theory and ethnography (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990; Gioia & Chittipeddi 1991) is that the case study is open to the use of theory or conceptual categories that guide the research and analysis of data. In contrast, grounded theory or ethnography presupposes that theoretical perspectives are grounded in and emerge from firsthand data. Hartley (1994) argues that without a theoretical framework, the researcher is in severe danger of providing description without meaning. Gummesson (1988) says that a lack of preunderstanding will cause the researcher to spend considerable time gathering basic information. This preunderstanding may arise from general knowledge such as theories, models, and concepts or from specific knowledge of institutional conditions and social patterns. According to Gummesson, the key is not to require researchers to have split but dual personalities: “Those who are able to balance on a razor’s edge using their pre-understanding without being its slave” (p. 58).

DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE STUDY

The study that will be used for illustrative purposes is a comparative and longitudinal case study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisitions taking place in Norway. The study had two purposes: (1) to identify contextual factors and features of integration that facilitated or impeded organizational integration, and (2) to study how the three dimensions of organizational integration (integration of tasks, unification of power, and integration of cultures and identities) interrelated and evolved over time. Examples of contextual factors were relative power, degree of friendliness, and economic climate. Integration features included factors such as participation, communication, and allocation of positions and functions.

Mergers and acquisitions are inherently complex. Researchers in the field have suggested that managers continuously underestimate the task of integrating the merging organizations in the postintegration process (Haspeslaph & Jemison 1991). The process of organizational integration can lead to sharp interorganizational conflict as the different top management styles, organizational and work unit cultures, systems, and other aspects of organizational life come into contact (Blake & Mounton 1985; Schweiger & Walsh 1990; Cartwright & Cooper 1993). Furthermore, cultural change in mergers and acquisitions is compounded by additional uncertainties, ambiguities, and stress inherent in the combination process (Buono & Bowditch 1989).

I focused on two combinations: one merger and one acquisition. The first case was a merger between two major Norwegian banks, Bergen Bank and DnC (to be named DnB), that started in the late 1980s. The second case was a study of a major acquisition in the insurance industry (i.e., Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede), that started in the early 1990s. Both combinations aimed to realize operational synergies though merging the two organizations into one entity. This implied disruption of organizational boundaries and threat to the existing power distribution and organizational cultures.

The study of integration processes in mergers and acquisitions illustrates the need to find a design that opens for exploration of sensitive issues such as power struggles between the two merging organizations. Furthermore, the inherent complexity in the integration process, involving integration of tasks, unification of power, and cultural integration stressed the need for in-depth study of the phenomenon over time. To understand the cultural integration process, the design also had to be linked to the past history of the two organizations.

DESIGN DECISIONS

In the introduction, I stressed that a case is a rather loose design that requires that a number of design choices be made. In this section, I go through the most important choices I faced in the study of organizational integration in mergers and acquisitions. These include: (1) selection of cases; (2) sampling time; (3) choosing business areas, divisions, and sites; and (4) selection of and choices regarding data collection procedures, interviews, documents, and observation.

Selection of Cases

There are several choices involved in selecting cases. First, there is the question of how many cases to include. Second, one must sample cases and decide on a unit of analysis. I will explore these issues subsequently.

Single or Multiple Cases

Case studies can involve single or multiple cases. The problem of single cases is limitations in generalizability and several information-processing biases (Eisenhardt 1989).

One way to respond to these biases is by applying a multi-case approach (Leonard-Barton 1990). Multiple cases augment external validity and help guard against observer biases. Moreover, multi-case sampling adds confidence to findings. By looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can understand a single-case finding, grounding it by specifying how and where and, if possible, why it behaves as it does. (Miles & Huberman 1994)

Given these limitations of the single case study, it is desirable to include more than one case study in the study. However, the desire for depth and a pluralist perspective and tracking the cases over time implies that the number of cases must be fairly few. I chose two cases, which clearly does not support generalizability any more than does one case, but allows for comparison and contrast between the cases as well as a deeper and richer look at each case.

Originally, I planned to include a third case in the study. Due to changes in management during the initial integration process, my access to the case was limited and I left this case entirely. However, a positive side effect was that it allowed a deeper investigation of the two original cases and in hindsight turned out to be a good decision.

Sampling Cases

The logic of sampling cases is fundamentally different from statistical sampling. The logic in case studies involves theoretical sampling, in which the goal is to choose cases that are likely to replicate or extend the emergent theory or to fill theoretical categories and provide examples for polar types (Eisenhardt 1989). Hence, whereas quantitative sampling concerns itself with representativeness, qualitative sampling seeks information richness and selects the cases purposefully rather than randomly (Crabtree and Miller 1992).

The choice of cases was guided by George (1979) and Pettigrew’s (1990) recommendations. The aim was to find cases that matched the three dimensions in the dependent variable and provided variation in the contextual factors, thus representing polar cases.

To match the choice of outcome variable, organizational integration, I chose cases in which the purpose was to fully consolidate the merging parties’ operations. A full consolidation would imply considerable disruption in the organizational boundaries and would be expected to affect the task-related, political, and cultural features of the organizations. As for the contextual factors, the two cases varied in contextual factors such as relative power, friendliness, and economic climate. The DnB merger was a friendly combination between two equal partners in an unfriendly economic climate. Gjensidige’s acquisition of Forenede was, in contrast, an unfriendly and unbalanced acquisition in a friendly economic climate.

Unit of Analysis

Another way to respond to researchers’ and respondents’ biases is to have more than one unit of analysis in each case (Yin 1993). This implies that, in addition to developing contrasts between the cases, researchers can focus on contrasts within the cases (Hartley 1994). In case studies, there is a choice of a holistic or embedded design (Yin 1989). A holistic design examines the global nature of the phenomenon, whereas an embedded design also pays attention to subunit(s).

I used an embedded design to analyze the cases (i.e., within each case, I also gave attention to subunits and subprocesses). In both cases, I compared the combination processes in the various divisions and local networks. Moreover, I compared three distinct change processes in DnB: before the merger, during the initial combination, and two years after the merger. The overall and most important unit of analysis in the two cases was, however, the integration process.

Sampling Time

According to Pettigrew (1990), time sets a reference for what changes can be seen and how those changes are explained. When conducting a case study, there are several important issues to decide when sampling time. The first regards how many times data should be collected, while the second concerns when to enter the organizations. There is also a need to decide whether to collect data on a continuous basis or in distinct periods.

Number of data collections. I studied the process by collecting real time and retrospective data at two points in time, with one-and-a-half- and two-year intervals in the two cases. Collecting data twice had some interesting implications for the interpretations of the data. During the first data collection in the DnB study, for example, I collected retrospective data about the premerger and initial combination phase and real-time data about the second step in the combination process.

Although I gained a picture of how the employees experienced the second stage of the combination process, it was too early to assess the effects of this process at that stage. I entered the organization two years later and found interesting effects that I had not anticipated the first time. Moreover, it was interesting to observe how people’s attitudes toward the merger processes changed over time to be more positive and less emotional.

When to enter the organizations. It would be desirable to have had the opportunity to collect data in the precombination processes. However, researchers are rarely given access in this period due to secrecy. The emphasis in this study was to focus on the postcombination process. As such, the precombination events were classified as contextual factors. This implied that it was most important to collect real-time data after the parties had been given government approval to merge or acquire. What would have been desirable was to gain access earlier in the postcombination process. This was not possible because access had to be negotiated. Due to the change of CEO in the middle of the merger process and the need for renegotiating access, this took longer than expected.

Regarding the second case, I was restricted by the time frame of the study. In essence, I had to choose between entering the combination process as soon as governmental approval was given, or entering the organization at a later stage. In light of the previous studies in the field that have failed to go beyond the initial two years, and given the need to collect data about the cultural integration process, I chose the latter strategy. And I decided to enter the organizations at two distinct periods of time rather than on a continuous basis.

There were several reasons for this approach, some methodological and some practical. First, data collection on a continuous basis would have required use of extensive observation that I didn’t have access to, and getting access to two data collections in DnB was difficult in itself. Second, I had a stay abroad between the first and second data collection in Gjensidige. Collecting data on a continuous basis would probably have allowed for better mapping of the ongoing integration process, but the contrasts between the two different stages in the integration process that I wanted to elaborate would probably be more difficult to detect. In Table 1 I have listed the periods of time in which I collected data in the two combinations.

Sampling Business Areas, Divisions, and Sites

Even when the cases for a study have been chosen, it is often necessary to make further choices within each case to make the cases researchable. The most important criteria that set the boundaries for the study are importance or criticality, relevance, and representativeness. At the time of the data collection, my criteria for making these decisions were not as conscious as they may appear here. Rather, being restricted by time and my own capacity as a researcher, I had to limit the sites and act instinctively. In both cases, I decided to concentrate on the core businesses (criticality criterion) and left out the business units that were only mildly affected by the integration process (relevance criterion). In the choice of regional offices, I used the representativeness criterion as the number of offices widely exceeded the number of sites possible to study. In making these choices, I relied on key informants in the organizations.

SELECTION OF DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The choice of data collection procedures should be guided by the research question and the choice of design. The case study approach typically combines data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations (Yin 1989). This triangulated methodology provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses. However, the choice of data collection methods is also subject to constraints in time, financial resources, and access.

I chose a combination of interviews, archives, and observation, with main emphasis on the first two. Conducting a survey was inappropriate due to the lack of established concepts and indicators. The reason for limited observation, on the other hand, was due to problems in obtaining access early in the study and time and resource constraints. In addition to choosing among several different data collection methods, there are a number of choices to be made for each individual method.

When relying on interviews as the primary data collection method, the issue of building trust between the researcher and the interviewees becomes very important. I addressed this issue by several means. First, I established a procedure of how to approach the interviewees. In most cases, I called them first, then sent out a letter explaining the key features of the project and outlining the broad issues to be addressed in the interview. In this letter, the support from the institution’s top management was also communicated. In most cases, the top management’s support of the project was an important prerequisite for the respondent’s input. Some interviewees did, however, fear that their input would be open to the top management without disguising the information source. Hence, it became important to communicate how I intended to use and store the information.

To establish trust, I also actively used my preunderstanding of the context in the first case and the phenomenon in the second case. As I built up an understanding of the cases, I used this information to gain confidence. The active use of my preunderstanding did, however, pose important challenges in not revealing too much of the research hypotheses and in balancing between asking open-ended questions and appearing knowledgeable.

There are two choices involved in conducting interviews. The first concerns the sampling of interviewees. The second is that you must decide on issues such as the structure of the interviews, use of tape recorder, and involvement of other researchers.

Sampling Interviewees

Following the desire for detailed knowledge of each case and for grasping different participant’s views the aim was, in line with Pettigrew (1990), to apply a pluralist view by describing and analyzing competing versions of reality as seen by actors in the combination processes.

I used four criteria for sampling informants. First, I drew informants from populations representing multiple perspectives. The first data collection in DnB was primarily focused on the top management level. Moreover, most middle managers in the first data collection were employed at the head offices, either in Bergen or Oslo. In the second data collection, I compensated for this skew by including eight local middle managers in the sample. The difference between the number of employees interviewed in DnB and Gjensidige was primarily due to the fact that Gjensidige has three unions, whereas DnB only has one. The distribution of interviewees is outlined in Table 2 .

The second criterion was to use multiple informants. According to Glick et al. (1990), an important advantage of using multiple informants is that the validity of information provided by one informant can be checked against that provided by other informants. Moreover, the validity of the data used by the researcher can be enhanced by resolving the discrepancies among different informants’ reports. Hence, I selected multiple respondents from each perspective.

Third, I focused on key informants who were expected to be knowledgeable about the combination process. These people included top management members, managers, and employees involved in the integration project. To validate the information from these informants, I also used a fourth criterion by selecting managers and employees who had been affected by the process but who were not involved in the project groups.

Structured versus unstructured. In line with the explorative nature of the study, the goal of the interviews was to see the research topic from the perspective of the interviewee, and to understand why he or she came to have this particular perspective. To meet this goal, King (1994:15) recommends that one have “a low degree of structure imposed on the interviewer, a preponderance of open questions, a focus on specific situations and action sequences in the world of the interviewee rather than abstractions and general opinions.” In line with these recommendations, the collection of primary data in this study consists of unstructured interviews.

Using tape recorders and involving other researchers. The majority of the interviews were tape-recorded, and I could thus concentrate fully on asking questions and responding to the interviewees’ answers. In the few interviews that were not tape-recorded, most of which were conducted in the first phase of the DnB-study, two researchers were present. This was useful as we were both able to discuss the interviews later and had feedback on the role of an interviewer.

In hindsight, however, I wish that these interviews had been tape-recorded to maintain the level of accuracy and richness of data. Hence, in the next phases of data collection, I tape-recorded all interviews, with two exceptions (people who strongly opposed the use of this device). All interviews that were tape-recorded were transcribed by me in full, which gave me closeness and a good grasp of the data.

When organizations merge or make acquisitions, there are often a vast number of documents to choose from to build up an understanding of what has happened and to use in the analyses. Furthermore, when firms make acquisitions or merge, they often hire external consultants, each of whom produces more documents. Due to time constraints, it is seldom possible to collect and analyze all these documents, and thus the researcher has to make a selection.

The choice of documentation was guided by my previous experience with merger and acquisition processes and the research question. Hence, obtaining information on the postintegration process was more important than gaining access to the due-diligence analysis. As I learned about the process, I obtained more documents on specific issues. I did not, however, gain access to all the documents I asked for, and, in some cases, documents had been lost or shredded.

The documents were helpful in a number of ways. First, and most important, they were used as inputs to the interview guide and saved me time, because I did not have to ask for facts in the interviews. They were also useful for tracing the history of the organizations and statements made by key people in the organizations. Third, the documents were helpful in counteracting the biases of the interviews. A list of the documents used in writing the cases is shown in Table 3 .

Observation

The major strength of direct observation is that it is unobtrusive and does not require direct interaction with participants (Adler and Adler 1994). Observation produces rigor when it is combined with other methods. When the researcher has access to group processes, direct observation can illuminate the discrepancies between what people said in the interviews and casual conversations and what they actually do (Pettigrew 1990).

As with interviews, there are a number of choices involved in conducting observations. Although I did some observations in the study, I used interviews as the key data collection source. Discussion in this article about observations will thus be somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I faced a number of choices in conducting observations, including type of observation, when to enter, how much observation to conduct, and which groups to observe.

The are four ways in which an observer may gather data: (1) the complete participant who operates covertly, concealing any intention to observe the setting; (2) the participant-as-observer, who forms relationships and participates in activities, but makes no secret of his or her intentions to observe events; (3) the observer-as-participant, who maintains only superficial contact with the people being studied; and (4) the complete observer, who merely stands back and eavesdrops on the proceedings (Waddington 1994).

In this study, I used the second and third ways of observing. The use of the participant-as-observer mode, on which much ethnographic research is based, was rather limited in the study. There were two reasons for this. First, I had limited time available for collecting data, and in my view interviews made more effective use of this limited time than extensive participant observation. Second, people were rather reluctant to let me observe these political and sensitive processes until they knew me better and felt I could be trusted. Indeed, I was dependent on starting the data collection before having built sufficient trust to observe key groups in the integration process. Nevertheless, Gjensidige allowed me to study two employee seminars to acquaint me with the organization. Here I admitted my role as an observer but participated fully in the activities. To achieve variation, I chose two seminars representing polar groups of employees.

As observer-as-participant, I attended a top management meeting at the end of the first data collection in Gjensidige and observed the respondents during interviews and in more informal meetings, such as lunches. All these observations gave me an opportunity to validate the data from the interviews. Observing the top management group was by far the most interesting and rewarding in terms of input.

Both DnB and Gjensidige started to open up for more extensive observation when I was about to finish the data collection. By then, I had built up the trust needed to undertake this approach. Unfortunately, this came a little late for me to take advantage of it.

DATA ANALYSIS

Published studies generally describe research sites and data-collection methods, but give little space to discuss the analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). Thus, one cannot follow how a researcher arrives at the final conclusions from a large volume of field notes (Miles and Huberman 1994).

In this study, I went through the stages by which the data were reduced and analyzed. This involved establishing the chronology, coding, writing up the data according to phases and themes, introducing organizational integration into the analysis, comparing the cases, and applying the theory. I will discuss these phases accordingly.

The first step in the analysis was to establish the chronology of the cases. To do this, I used internal and external documents. I wrote the chronologies up and included appendices in the final report.

The next step was to code the data into phases and themes reflecting the contextual factors and features of integration. For the interviews, this implied marking the text with a specific phase and a theme, and grouping the paragraphs on the same theme and phase together. I followed the same procedure in organizing the documents.

I then wrote up the cases using phases and themes to structure them. Before starting to write up the cases, I scanned the information on each theme, built up the facts and filled in with perceptions and reactions that were illustrative and representative of the data.

The documents were primarily useful in establishing the facts, but they also provided me with some perceptions and reactions that were validated in the interviews. The documents used included internal letters and newsletters as well as articles from the press. The interviews were less factual, as intended, and gave me input to assess perceptions and reactions. The limited observation was useful to validate the data from the interviews. The result of this step was two descriptive cases.

To make each case more analytical, I introduced the three dimensions of organizational integration—integration of tasks, unification of power, and cultural integration—into the analysis. This helped to focus the case and to develop a framework that could be used to compare the cases. The cases were thus structured according to phases, organizational integration, and themes reflecting the factors and features in the study.

I took all these steps to become more familiar with each case as an individual entity. According to Eisenhardt (1989:540), this is a process that “allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before the investigators push to generalise patterns across cases. In addition it gives investigators a rich familiarity with each case which, in turn, accelerates cross-case comparison.”

The comparison between the cases constituted the next step in the analysis. Here, I used the categories from the case chapters, filled in the features and factors, and compared and contrasted the findings. The idea behind cross-case searching tactics is to force investigators to go beyond initial impressions, especially through the use of structural and diverse lenses on the data. These tactics improve the likelihood of accurate and reliable theory, that is, theory with a close fit to the data (Eisenhardt 1989).

As a result, I had a number of overall themes, concepts, and relationships that had emerged from the within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons. The next step was to compare these emergent findings with theory from the organizational field of mergers and acquisitions, as well as other relevant perspectives.

This method of generalization is known as analytical generalization. In this approach, a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study (Yin 1989). This comparison of emergent concepts, theory, or hypotheses with the extant literature involves asking what it is similar to, what it contradicts, and why. The key to this process is to consider a broad range of theory (Eisenhardt 1989). On the whole, linking emergent theory to existent literature enhances the internal validity, generalizability, and theoretical level of theory-building from case research.

According to Eisenhardt (1989), examining literature that conflicts with the emergent literature is important for two reasons. First, the chance of neglecting conflicting findings is reduced. Second, “conflicting results forces researchers into a more creative, frame-breaking mode of thinking than they might otherwise be able to achieve” (p. 544). Similarly, Eisenhardt (1989) claims that literature discussing similar findings is important because it ties together underlying similarities in phenomena not normally associated with each other. The result is often a theory with a stronger internal validity, wider generalizability, and a higher conceptual level.

The analytical generalization in the study included exploring and developing the concepts and examining the relationships between the constructs. In carrying out this analytical generalization, I acted on Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendation to use a broad range of theory. First, I compared and contrasted the findings with the organizational stream on mergers and acquisition literature. Then I discussed other relevant literatures, including strategic change, power and politics, social justice, and social identity theory to explore how these perspectives could contribute to the understanding of the findings. Finally, I discussed the findings that could not be explained either by the merger and acquisition literature or the four theoretical perspectives.

In every scientific study, questions are raised about whether the study is valid and reliable. The issues of validity and reliability in case studies are just as important as for more deductive designs, but the application is fundamentally different.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

The problems of validity in qualitative studies are related to the fact that most qualitative researchers work alone in the field, they focus on the findings rather than describe how the results were reached, and they are limited in processing information (Miles and Huberman 1994).

Researchers writing about qualitative methods have questioned whether the same criteria can be used for qualitative and quantitative studies (Kirk & Miller 1986; Sykes 1990; Maxwell 1992). The problem with the validity criteria suggested in qualitative research is that there is little consistency across the articles as each author suggests a new set of criteria.

One approach in examining validity and reliability is to apply the criteria used in quantitative research. Hence, the criteria to be examined here are objectivity/intersubjectivity, construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.

Objectivity/Intersubjectivity

The basic issue of objectivity can be framed as one of relative neutrality and reasonable freedom from unacknowledged research biases (Miles & Huberman 1994). In a real-time longitudinal study, the researcher is in danger of losing objectivity and of becoming too involved with the organization, the people, and the process. Hence, Leonard-Barton (1990) claims that one may be perceived as, and may even become, an advocate rather than an observer.

According to King (1994), however, qualitative research, in seeking to describe and make sense of the world, does not require researchers to strive for objectivity and distance themselves from research participants. Indeed, to do so would make good qualitative research impossible, as the interviewer’s sensitivity to subjective aspects of his or her relationship with the interviewee is an essential part of the research process (King 1994:31).

This does not imply, however, that the issue of possible research bias can be ignored. It is just as important as in a structured quantitative interview that the findings are not simply the product of the researcher’s prejudices and prior experience. One way to guard against this bias is for the researcher to explicitly recognize his or her presuppositions and to make a conscious effort to set these aside in the analysis (Gummesson 1988). Furthermore, rival conclusions should be considered (Miles & Huberman 1994).

My experience from the first phase of the DnB study was that it was difficult to focus the questions and the analysis of the data when the research questions were too vague and broad. As such, developing a framework before collecting the data for the study was useful in guiding the collection and analysis of data. Nevertheless, it was important to be open-minded and receptive to new and surprising data. In the DnB study, for example, the positive effect of the reorganization process on the integration of cultures came as a complete surprise to me and thus needed further elaboration.

I also consciously searched for negative evidence and problems by interviewing outliers (Miles & Huberman 1994) and asking problem-oriented questions. In Gjensidige, the first interviews with the top management revealed a much more positive perception of the cultural integration process than I had expected. To explore whether this was a result of overreliance on elite informants, I continued posing problem-oriented questions to outliers and people at lower levels in the organization. Moreover, I told them about the DnB study to be explicit about my presuppositions.

Another important issue when assessing objectivity is whether other researchers can trace the interpretations made in the case studies, or what is called intersubjectivity. To deal with this issue, Miles & Huberman (1994) suggest that: (1) the study’s general methods and procedures should be described in detail, (2) one should be able to follow the process of analysis, (3) conclusions should be explicitly linked with exhibits of displayed data, and (4) the data from the study should be made available for reanalysis by others.

In response to these requirements, I described the study’s data collection procedures and processing in detail. Then, the primary data were displayed in the written report in the form of quotations and extracts from documents to support and illustrate the interpretations of the data. Because the study was written up in English, I included the Norwegian text in a separate appendix. Finally, all the primary data from the study were accessible for a small group of distinguished researchers.

Construct Validity

Construct validity refers to whether there is substantial evidence that the theoretical paradigm correctly corresponds to observation (Kirk & Miller 1986). In this form of validity, the issue is the legitimacy of the application of a given concept or theory to established facts.

The strength of qualitative research lies in the flexible and responsive interaction between the interviewer and the respondents (Sykes 1990). Thus, meaning can be probed, topics covered easily from a number of angles, and questions made clear for respondents. This is an advantage for exploring the concepts (construct or theoretical validity) and the relationships between them (internal validity). Similarly, Hakim (1987) says the great strength of qualitative research is the validity of data obtained because individuals are interviewed in sufficient detail for the results to be taken as true, correct, and believable reports of their views and experiences.

Construct validity can be strengthened by applying a longitudinal multicase approach, triangulation, and use of feedback loops. The advantage of applying a longitudinal approach is that one gets the opportunity to test sensitivity of construct measures to the passage of time. Leonard-Barton (1990), for example, found that one of her main constructs, communicability, varied across time and relative to different groups of users. Thus, the longitudinal study aided in defining the construct more precisely. By using more than one case study, one can validate stability of construct across situations (Leonard-Barton 1990). Since my study only consists of two case studies, the opportunity to test stability of constructs across cases is somewhat limited. However, the use of more than one unit of analysis helps to overcome this limitation.

Construct validity is strengthened by the use of multiple sources of evidence to build construct measures, which define the construct and distinguish it from other constructs. These multiple sources of evidence can include multiple viewpoints within and across the data sources. My study responds to these requirements in its sampling of interviewees and uses of multiple data sources.

Use of feedback loops implies returning to interviewees with interpretations and developing theory and actively seeking contradictions in data (Crabtree & Miller 1992; King 1994). In DnB, the written report had to be approved by the bank’s top management after the first data collection. Apart from one minor correction, the bank had no objections to the established facts. In their comments on my analysis, some of the top managers expressed the view that the political process had been overemphasized, and that the CEO’s role in initiating a strategic process was undervalued. Hence, an important objective in the second data collection was to explore these comments further. Moreover, the report was not as positive as the management had hoped for, and negotiations had to be conducted to publish the report. The result of these negotiations was that publication of the report was postponed one-and-a-half years.

The experiences from the first data collection in the DnB had some consequences. I was more cautious and brought up the problems of confidentiality and the need to publish at the outset of the Gjensidige study. Also, I had to struggle to get access to the DnB case for the second data collection and some of the information I asked for was not released. At Gjensidige, I sent a preliminary draft of the case chapter to the corporation’s top management for comments, in addition to having second interviews with a small number of people. Beside testing out the factual description, these sessions gave me the opportunity to test out the theoretical categories established as a result of the within-case analysis.

Internal Validity

Internal validity concerns the validity of the postulated relationships among the concepts. The main problem of internal validity as a criterion in qualitative research is that it is often not open to scrutiny. According to Sykes (1990), the researcher can always provide a plausible account and, with careful editing, may ensure its coherence. Recognition of this problem has led to calls for better documentation of the processes of data collection, the data itself, and the interpretative contribution of the researcher. The discussion of how I met these requirements was outlined in the section on objectivity/subjectivity above.

However, there are some advantages in using qualitative methods, too. First, the flexible and responsive methods of data collection allow cross-checking and amplification of information from individual units as it is generated. Respondents’ opinions and understandings can be thoroughly explored. The internal validity results from strategies that eliminate ambiguity and contradiction, filling in detail and establishing strong connections in data.

Second, the longitudinal study enables one to track cause and effect. Moreover, it can make one aware of intervening variables (Leonard-Barton 1990). Eisenhardt (1989:542) states, “Just as hypothesis testing research an apparent relationship may simply be a spurious correlation or may reflect the impact of some third variable on each of the other two. Therefore, it is important to discover the underlying reasons for why the relationship exists.”

Generalizability

According to Mitchell (1983), case studies are not based on statistical inference. Quite the contrary, the inferring process turns exclusively on the theoretically necessary links among the features in the case study. The validity of the extrapolation depends not on the typicality or representativeness of the case but on the cogency of the theoretical reasoning. Hartley (1994:225) claims, “The detailed knowledge of the organization and especially the knowledge about the processes underlying the behaviour and its context can help to specify the conditions under which behaviour can be expected to occur. In other words, the generalisation is about theoretical propositions not about populations.”

Generalizability is normally based on the assumption that this theory may be useful in making sense of similar persons or situations (Maxwell 1992). One way to increase the generalizability is to apply a multicase approach (Leonard-Barton 1990). The advantage of this approach is that one can replicate the findings from one case study to another. This replication logic is similar to that used on multiple experiments (Yin 1993).

Given the choice of two case studies, the generalizability criterion is not supported in this study. Through the discussion of my choices, I have tried to show that I had to strike a balance between the need for depth and mapping changes over time and the number of cases. In doing so, I deliberately chose to provide a deeper and richer look at each case, allowing the reader to make judgments about the applicability rather than making a case for generalizability.

Reliability

Reliability focuses on whether the process of the study is consistent and reasonably stable over time and across researchers and methods (Miles & Huberman 1994). In the context of qualitative research, reliability is concerned with two questions (Sykes 1990): Could the same study carried out by two researchers produce the same findings? and Could a study be repeated using the same researcher and respondents to yield the same findings?

The problem of reliability in qualitative research is that differences between replicated studies using different researchers are to be expected. However, while it may not be surprising that different researchers generate different findings and reach different conclusions, controlling for reliability may still be relevant. Kirk and Miller’s (1986:311) definition takes into account the particular relationship between the researcher’s orientation, the generation of data, and its interpretation:

For reliability to be calculated, it is incumbent on the scientific investigator to document his or her procedure. This must be accomplished at such a level of abstraction that the loci of decisions internal to the project are made apparent. The curious public deserves to know how the qualitative researcher prepares him or herself for the endeavour, and how the data is collected and analysed.

The study addresses these requirements by discussing my point of departure regarding experience and framework, the sampling and data collection procedures, and data analysis.

Case studies often lack academic rigor and are, as such, regarded as inferior to more rigorous methods where there are more specific guidelines for collecting and analyzing data. These criticisms stress that there is a need to be very explicit about the choices one makes and the need to justify them.

One reason why case studies are criticized may be that researchers disagree about the definition and the purpose of carrying out case studies. Case studies have been regarded as a design (Cook and Campbell 1979), as a qualitative methodology (Cassell and Symon 1994), as a particular data collection procedure (Andersen 1997), and as a research strategy (Yin 1989). Furthermore, the purpose for carrying out case studies is unclear. Some regard case studies as supplements to more rigorous qualitative studies to be carried out in the early stage of the research process; others claim that it can be used for multiple purposes and as a research strategy in its own right (Gummesson 1988; Yin 1989). Given this unclear status, researchers need to be very clear about their interpretation of the case study and the purpose of carrying out the study.

This article has taken Yin’s (1989) definition of the case study as a research strategy as a starting point and argued that the choice of the case study should be guided by the research question(s). In the illustrative study, I used a case study strategy because of a need to explore sensitive, ill-defined concepts in depth, over time, taking into account the context and history of the mergers and the existing knowledge about the phenomenon. However, the choice of a case study strategy extended rather than limited the number of decisions to be made. In Schramm’s (1971, cited in Yin 1989:22–23) words, “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions, why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result.”

Hence, the purpose of this article has been to illustrate the wide range of decisions that need to be made in the context of a particular case study and to discuss the methodological considerations linked to these decisions. I argue that there is a particular need in case studies to be explicit about the methodological choices one makes and that these choices can be best illustrated through a case study of the case study strategy.

As in all case studies, however, there are limitations to the generalizability of using one particular case study for illustrative purposes. As such, the strength of linking the methodological considerations to a specific context and phenomenon also becomes a weakness. However, I would argue that the questions raised in this article are applicable to many case studies, but that the answers are very likely to vary. The design choices are shown in Table 4 . Hence, researchers choosing a longitudinal, comparative case study need to address the same set of questions with regard to design, data collection procedures, and analysis, but they are likely to come up with other conclusions, given their different research questions.

Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1994. Observational techniques. In Handbook of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 377–92. London: Sage.

Andersen, S. S. 1997. Case-studier og generalisering: Forskningsstrategi og design (Case studies and generalization: Research strategy and design). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.

Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mounton. 1985. How to achieve integration on the human side of the merger. Organizational Dynamics 13 (3): 41–56.

Bryman, A., and R. G. Burgess. 1999. Qualitative research. London: Sage.

Buono, A. F., and J. L. Bowditch. 1989. The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cartwright, S., and C. L. Cooper. 1993. The psychological impact of mergers and acquisitions on the individual: A study of building society managers. Human Relations 46 (3): 327–47.

Cassell, C., and G. Symon, eds. 1994. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.

Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Crabtree, B. F., and W. L. Miller. 1992. Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In Doing qualitative research: Methods for primary care, edited by B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller, 3–28. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., and L. S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.

Flick, U. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

George, A. L. 1979. Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory, and policy, edited by P. G. Lauren, 43–68. New York: Free Press.

Gioia, D. A., and K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12:433–48.

Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glick, W. H, G. P. Huber, C. C. Miller, D. H. Doty, and K. M. Sutcliffe. 1990. Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodic assessments. Organization Science 1 (3): 293–312.

Gummesson, E. 1988. Qualitative methods in management research. Lund, Norway: Studentlitteratur, Chartwell-Bratt.

Hakim, C. 1987. Research design. Strategies and choices in the design of social research. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Hamel, J., S. Dufour, and D. Fortin. 1993. Case study methods. London: Sage.

Hartley, J. F. 1994. Case studies in organizational research. In Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 209–29. London: Sage.

Haspeslaph, P., and D. B. Jemison. 1991. The challenge of renewal through acquisitions. Planning Review 19 (2): 27–32.

King, N. 1994. The qualitative research interview. In Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 14–36. London: Sage.

Kirk, J., and M. L. Miller. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series 1. London: Sage.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1990.Adual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science 1 (3): 248–66.

Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62 (3): 279–99.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2d ed. London: Sage.

Mitchell, J. C. 1983. Case and situation analysis. Sociology Review 51 (2): 187–211.

Nachmias, C., and D. Nachmias. 1981. Research methods in the social sciences. London: Edward Arnhold.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science 1 (3): 267–92.

___. (1992). The character and significance of strategic process research. Strategic Management Journal 13:5–16.

Rossman, G. B., and S. F. Rallis. 1998. Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schramm, W. 1971. Notes on case studies for instructional media projects. Working paper for Academy of Educational Development, Washington DC.

Schweiger, D. M., and J. P. Walsh. 1990. Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. In Research in personnel and human resource management, edited by G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland, 41–107. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Silverman, D. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. London: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sykes, W. 1990. Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: A review of the literature. Journal of the Market Research Society 32 (3): 289–328.

Waddington, D. 1994. Participant observation. In Qualitative methods in organizational research, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 107–22. London: Sage.

Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Series, Vol. 5. London: Sage.

___. 1993. Applications of case study research. Applied Social Research Series, Vol. 34. London: Sage.

Christine Benedichte Meyer is an associate professor in the Department of Strategy and Management in the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen-Sandviken, Norway. Her research interests are mergers and acquisitions, strategic change, and qualitative research. Recent publications include: “Allocation Processes in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Organisational Justice Perspective” (British Journal of Management 2001) and “Motives for Acquisitions in the Norwegian Financial Industry” (CEMS Business Review 1997).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). Case Study Research. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_7

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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 27 May 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.

• 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

782k Accesses

1042 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]

• Process: Research Design

Ask a Librarian

Research design.

Design are the methods of collecting evidence to address the research questions and theories. For example: observation, surveys, archival research, experiments, among others. A few common methods are described below. For an in-depth examination of research designs, we recommend the following sources.

Recommended sources

• SAGE Research Methods Online Information about writing a research question, conducting a literature review, choosing a research method, collecting data, and writing up the findings. Coverage spans the full range of research methods used in the social and behavioral sciences, plus a wide range of methods used commonly in sciences, health sciences, and humanities.
• Sage Research Methods: Methods Map

Research Methods

Action research.

A term that is used to describe a global family of related approaches that integrate theory and action with the goal of addressing important organizational, community and social issues together with those who experience them. It focuses on the creation of areas for collaborative learning and the design, enactment and evaluation of liberating actions through combining action and reflection, in an ongoing cycle of co-generative knowledge." Action research is cyclical as the researcher explores intervention on a problem and moving through observations and evaluations. Related approaches: collaborative research, mixed methods, participatory action research, ethnography, participant observation.  Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (Vols. 1-2). London, : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446294406

Applied Research

Applied research is inquiry using the application of scientific methodology with the purpose of generating empirical observations to solve critical problems in society. It is widely used in varying contexts, ranging from applied behavior analysis to city planning and public policy and to program evaluation. Applied research can be executed through a diverse range of research strategies that can be solely quantitative, solely qualitative, or a mixed method research design that combines quantitative and qualitative data slices in the same project. What all the multiple facets in applied research projects share is one basic commonality—the practice of conducting research in “nonpure” research conditions because data are needed to help solve a real-life problem.  Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288

A method that seeks to illuminate a research problem by collecting and detailing observations of a particular entity. Definitions of case study differs across disciplines. Generally, case studies "focus on the interrelationships that constitute the context of a specific entity (such as an organization, event, phenomenon, or person)" and analyze "the relationship between the contextual factors and the entity being studied." The method is adopted with "the explicit purpose of using those insights (of the interactions between contextual relationships and the entity in question) to generate theory and/or contribute to extant theory.  Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397

Causal Design

Causality studies may be thought of as understanding a phenomenon in terms of conditional statements in the form, “If X, then Y.” This type of research is used to measure what impact a specific change will have on existing norms and assumptions. Most social scientists seek causal explanations that reflect tests of hypotheses. Causal effect (nomothetic perspective) occurs when variation in one phenomenon, an independent variable, leads to or results, on average, in variation in another phenomenon, the dependent variable.  From https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/researchdesigns

Cohort Design

A design in which groups of individuals pass through an institution such as a school but experience different events such as whether or not they have been exposed to a particular course. The groups have not been randomly assigned to whether or not they experience the particular event so it is not possible to determine whether any difference between the groups experiencing the event and those not experiencing the event is due to the event itself.  Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics (Vols. 1-0). London, : SAGE Publications, Ltd doi: 10.4135/9780857020123

Experimental Design

Experiments are ways of assessing causal relationships by, in its simplest form, randomly allocating 'subjects' to two groups and then comparing one (the 'control group') in which no changes are made, with the other (the 'test group') who are subjected to some manipulation or stimulus." "The primary purpose of experimental designs is to establish “cause and effect” or more technically, to make causal inferences.  Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks,, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781506326139

Meta-analysis

A statistical method that integrates the results of several independent studies considered to be “combinable.” It has become one of the major tools to integrate research findings in social and medical sciences in general and in education and psychology in particular." Essential characteristics of meta-analysis include: "it is undeniably quantitative, that is, it uses numbers and statistical methods for organizing and extracting information; it does not prejudge research findings in terms of research quality (i.e., no a priori arbitrary and nonempirical criteria of research quality are imposed to exclude a large number of studies); it seeks general conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses.  Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288

Fieldwork or Field Research

Conducted in a natural setting rather than in a laboratory or at a distance. "Researchers examine how the manipulation of at least one independent variable leads to a change in a dependent variable in the context of the natural environment. When researchers conduct experiments, they study how the manipulation of independent variables, or variables that remain constant, cause a change in a dependent variable, or a factor that changes.  Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc doi: 10.4135/9781483381411

Longitudinal Research

Although the term is used somewhat differently in different disciplines, it generally refers to research involving data collected at more than one point in time and focused on the measurement and analysis of change over time in the units of study.  Sage Research Methods

Ethnography

Ethnography involves the production of highly detailed accounts of how people in a social setting lead their lives, based on systematic and long-term observation of, and discussion with, those within the setting.  Sage Research Methods

Mixed Methods Research

A process of research in which researchers integrate quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to best understand a research purpose. The way this process unfolds in a given study is shaped by mixed methods research content considerations and researchers’ personal, interpersonal, and social contexts  Plano Clark, V. & Ivankova, N. (2016). Why a guide to the field of mixed methods research?: introducing a conceptual framework of the field. In Plano Clark, V., & Ivankova, N. Mixed methods research: A guide to the field (pp. 3-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483398341

Clinical Research

Medical research involving people. The aim of clinical research is to advance medical knowledge by collecting evidence to establish treatments, either through observational studies or through experimental research such as clinical trials." Includes: protocols, clinical trials, pre-post studies.  Sage Research Methods

Qualitative Research

Also known as qualitative inquiry, is an umbrella term used to cover a wide variety of research methods and methodologies that provide holistic, in-depth accounts and attempt to reflect the complicated, contextual, interactive, and interpretive nature of our social world. For example, grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, narratology, photovoice, and participatory action research (PAR) may all be included under the qualitative label, although each of these individual methods is based on its own set of assumptions and procedures.  Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research studies produce results that can be used to describe or note numerical changes in measurable characteristics of a population of interest; generalize to other, similar situations; provide explanations of predictions; and explain causal relationships. The fundamental philosophy underlying quantitative research is known as positivism, which is based on the scientific method of research.  Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288

• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/design
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

• Open access
• Published: 29 May 2024

Cannabis use in a Canadian long-term care facility: a case study

• Lynda G. Balneaves 1 , 4 ,
• Abeer A. Alraja 1 ,
• Genevieve Thompson 1 ,
• Jamie L. Penner 1 ,
• Philip St. John 2 ,
• Daniella Scerbo 1 &
• Joanne van Dyck 3  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  467 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Following the legalization of cannabis in Canada in 2018, people aged 65 + years reported a significant increase in cannabis consumption. Despite limited research with older adults regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, there is increasing interest and use among this population, particularly for those who have chronic illnesses or are at end of life. Long-term Care (LTC) facilities are required to reflect on their care and policies related to the use of cannabis, and how to address residents’ cannabis use within what they consider to be their home.

Using an exploratory case study design, this study aimed to understand how one LTC facility in western Canada addressed the major policy shift related to medical and non-medical cannabis. The case study, conducted November 2021 to August 2022, included an environmental scan of existing policies and procedures related to cannabis use at the LTC facility, a quantitative survey of Healthcare Providers’ (HCP) knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cannabis, and qualitative interviews with HCPs and administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.

A total of 71 HCPs completed the survey and 12 HCPs, including those who functioned as administrators, participated in the interview. The largest knowledge gaps were related to dosing and creating effective treatment plans for residents using cannabis. About half of HCPs reported providing care in the past month to a resident who was taking medical cannabis (54.9%) and a quarter (25.4%) to a resident that was taking non-medical cannabis. The majority of respondents (81.7%) reported that lack of knowledge, education or information about medical cannabis were barriers to medical cannabis use in LTC. From the qualitative data, we identified four key findings regarding HCPs’ attitudes, cannabis access and use, barriers to cannabis use, and non-medical cannabis use.

Conclusions

With the legalization of medical and non-medical cannabis in jurisdictions around the world, LTC facilities will be obligated to develop policies, procedures and healthcare services that are able to accommodate residents’ use of cannabis in a respectful and evidence-informed manner.

Peer Review reports

In October 2018, Canada became the second country to legalize non-medical cannabis [ 1 ]. Despite the increasing interest in cannabis among Canadians of all ages [ 2 ], the percentage of individuals over the age of 15 years reporting cannabis use a year following legalization remained relatively unchanged at 18% [3]. The only age group to report a significant increase in cannabis consumption was those aged 65 + years, with 7.6% reporting cannabis use in the past 3 months [ 3 ] in 2019 compared to 4% in 2018. This upward trend in cannabis use among Canadians 65 years or older was also observed in 2021 [ 4 ].

This increase may reflect a growing acceptance of cannabis among older populations who were previously dissuaded from taking cannabis due to its illegal status as well as limited accessibility through legal means. In addition, the rise in cannabis use among older adults may reflect a harm reduction approach, substituting cannabis for other recreational substances with substantial health risks, such as alcohol [ 5 ]. Moreover, the belief in the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis [ 6 , 7 , 8 ], such as the management of pain and sleep issues, is becoming increasingly prevalent among older adults. There has been limited research, however, among older adults in Canada to understand this progressive trend in cannabis use and the influencing factors [ 9 ].

Canada has been a world leader in cannabis legalization, launching a federal medical cannabis program in 2001. Since this time, the medical cannabis program has undergone numerous revisions, including how authorization is obtained, what types of products are available, and where cannabis is purchased. Currently, Canadians can seek medical authorization from either a physician or a nurse practitioner, and access a variety of cannabis products, including dried flower, capsules, and oils, which are purchased online through a licensed producer (LP). Some individuals also apply for a personal or designated grow license to produce their own supply of dried cannabis. Outside of the medical authorization program, individuals can access non-medical cannabis through an authorized storefront. It is estimated that over 1 million Canadians are using cannabis for therapeutic purposes [4], with 247,548 individuals officially registered as of March 2022 [ 10 ]. Among the 479,400 individuals over the age of 65 who reported cannabis use in the third quarter of 2019, 52% utilized cannabis exclusively for medical reasons, and another 24% reported using cannabis for both recreational and medical purposes [ 3 ].

Despite the growing interest in cannabis as a therapeutic agent, there has been limited human research due to its illegal status in many countries, as well as the challenges posed by the complexity of the cannabis plant compared to single agent, pharmaceutical forms of cannabis (e.g., nabilone) [ 11 , 12 ]. Notwithstanding these challenges, there is emergent research on the potential role of cannabis-based medicines in the management of health conditions common among older adults, including osteoarthritis [ 13 ], sleep disorders [ 14 ], dementia [ 15 ], and Parkinson’s [ 16 , 17 ], which are also prevalent among individuals residing at long-term care (LTC) facilities. For example, several studies have found cannabis-based medicines to significantly reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms and improve quality of life among people living with Alzheimer’s Disease [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Cannabis may also play a significant role at end of life in not only alleviating physical symptoms, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss, but also addressing the emotional and existential issues that may arise [ 21 ]. It has also been proposed that cannabis may have a therapeutic role among rehabilitative populations who often reside in LTC settings, including those with spinal cord injuries [ 22 , 23 ] and traumatic brain injury [ 24 ]. The evidence base surrounding cannabis as a therapeutic agent, however, remains limited with few large randomized clinical trials conducted to date.

Cannabis is not a benign substance and may pose risk to older adults, especially those living with frailty or cognitive impairment. Given the known cognitive effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a cannabinoid found in many forms of cannabis, adults living in long-term and rehabilitative care settings may experience somnolence, confusion, and fatigue [ 25 ]. Cannabis high in THC may also negatively impact motor coordination and increase the risk of falls, especially among those with impaired balance and walking ability [ 25 ]. As research advances on cannabis, there has been growing awareness of its negative interactions with certain medications [ 26 ], which can pose a significant issue among older clients prone to polypharmacy. Lastly, numerous health conditions are contraindicated with cannabis use, including heart disease, and a personal or family history of psychosis, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder [ 27 ].

Despite limited research with older adults regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, there is increasing interest and use among this population, particularly for those who have chronic illnesses. As adults age, they are more likely to experience multimorbidity, and a significant number of older adults spend their last years of life residing in a LTC facility [ 28 , 29 ]. LTC facilities are, thus, placed in a unique position. While these facilities are considered medical institutions that provide evidence-informed supportive health care, they have also become home for individuals who are no longer able to reside safely in the community. Increasingly, these types of facilities are challenged to create home-like environments and offer residents the opportunity and autonomy to engage in potentially risky health behaviours [ 30 ]; behaviours that individuals in the community have the independence and legal right to choose, such as alcohol or tobacco consumption. With the legalization of non-medical cannabis and the growing interest in the potential of cannabis to manage challenging health conditions, it behooves LTC facilities to reflect on their care and policies related to the use of legal substances, such as cannabis, and how to address residents’ cannabis use within what they consider to be their home.

The overarching aim of this case study was to understand how one LTC facility, and its healthcare professionals (HCPs) and administrators, addressed the major policy shift in Canada related to medical and non-medical cannabis. Specific research questions included: (1) What are the experiences and perceptions of HCPs and administrators regarding the use of medical and non-medical cannabis at LTC settings?; (2) What are the perceived barriers/facilitators to medical and non-medical cannabis use at LTC facilities from the perspective of HCPs and administrators?; and (3) What are the educational needs, attitudes, and practices of HCPs at LTC facilities related to medical and non-medical cannabis?

Research design and setting

An exploratory case study design was utilized in this study. This type of case study is used to explore those situations in which the phenomenon being evaluated has no clear or single set of outcomes [ 31 ]. The case selected for this study was a large LTC facility in Western Canada. This 387-bed residential facility provides 24/7 care to a diverse population, including older adults with cognitive and physical disabilities, individuals recovering from stroke and traumatic brain injury, and those requiring end-of-life care. Individuals with these various conditions may reside in several units, including palliative care, rehabilitation, personal care home, and complex chronic care. The case study included an environmental scan of existing policies and procedures related to medical and non-medical cannabis use at the LTC facility, a quantitative survey of HCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to medical and non-medical cannabis, and qualitative interviews with HCPs and administrators. The qualitative interviews were informed by qualitative descriptive methodology [ 32 ] and explored HCPs’ and administrators’ experiences, beliefs, perceptions regarding cannabis use in LTC, and the related barriers and facilitators.

Sample and recruitment

For the survey, a convenience sample was drawn from the entire population of accredited HCPs working in the selected facility. Eligibility criteria included being 18 + years, able to read/speak English, currently employed and providing care at the LTC facility, and able to provide informed written consent. Study participants were recruited through an emailed letter of invitation, posters placed in staff areas, and in-person presentations by a research assistant. From participants who took part in the survey, a subsample of HCPs, including administrators, who expressed interest in taking part in an interview was selected. The data collection period was from November 2021 and August 2022.

Data collection

For the environmental scan, facility administrators were approached via an emailed letter and asked to identify relevant policies and procedures related to cannabis use within their LTC facility. Policies relevant to both residents’ use of cannabis and HCPs’ practice related to medical and non-medical cannabis were requested. Provincial and federal cannabis policies were also collected.

The survey was modified from a questionnaire utilized in two national studies that examined Canadian physicians’ and nurse practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the associated barriers and facilitators related to medical cannabis use, as well as their preferences regarding medical cannabis education [ 33 , 34 ]. This survey has been found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.70 to 0.92 reported across subscales [ 33 , 34 ]. Slight word changes were made to reflect the fact that individuals living in LTC facility are referred to as residents, not patients, and the name of the facility was used to orientate the questions towards HCPs’ attitudes and practices related to cannabis use within the LTC setting.

Survey items were added that assessed HCPs’ practices related to addressing residents’ and family members’ questions about cannabis, as well as requests for medical cannabis authorization and follow-up care. A demographic survey that assessed gender, age, professional designation, years in practice, area(s) of practice, and education related to medical cannabis was included. The survey was available in hard copy (Supplementary Material 1 ) as well as online through the software program, Qualtrics®.

An interview guide was developed by the research team, which included a facility administrator and HCP, and was informed by the literature and previous cannabis research conducted by members of the research team [ 35 ] (Supplementary Material 2 ). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all but one interview was conducted by the project coordinator (AAA) via Zoom, with one interview occurring over the phone. The interviews were 20–30 min in length and were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both the survey and interview were completed at times preferred by the respondents, including within and outside work time. No honoraria were provided for study participants.

Data analysis

The policies identified through the environmental scan were reviewed and summarized in table format, with similarities, contradictions and gaps identified.

Quantitative survey data was uploaded into the statistical program, SPSS® v.25. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic information, knowledge about medical cannabis and related attitudes, perceived barriers and facilitators, practice experiences, and preferred educational approaches.

Perceived knowledge gap was calculated by computing the difference between perceived current and desired knowledge levels (i.e., “the level of knowledge you desire” about medical cannabis). Rather than using averages, the knowledge gap was calculated based on how much greater an individual’s desired knowledge level was compared to their current knowledge level [ 36 ]. Only response pairs (i.e., current and desired knowledge) were used, and responses where the desired level was lower than the current level were excluded. To further elucidate, the knowledge gap was calculated by having each respondent’s current knowledge level response subtracted from their desired knowledge level response.

Prior to the onset of qualitative data analysis, the accuracy of the transcripts was checked by listening to the digital recordings. Content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data [ 37 ], with two team members (AAA and LGB) independently reading the transcripts and developing a preliminary coding scheme. Constant comparison of new and existing data ensured consistency, relevance, and comprehensiveness of emerging codes. Several strategies were applied to ensure rigour in the qualitative analysis. To increase credibility, a team member with expertise in qualitative inquiry (LGB) monitored the qualitative data and its analysis. Confirmability was addressed by using the participants’ own words throughout the process of data analysis, interpretation, and description. An audit trail was kept documenting the activities of the study, including data analysis decisions.

Environmental scan of cannabis-related policies

Administrators at the LTC facility provided the research team with the policies and procedures that addressed the management and use of medical and non-medical cannabis within the facility. The guiding policy adopted by the LTC facility was a generic policy applicable to all sites and facilities governed by a regional health authority. This policy, entitled “Patient Use of Medical Cannabis (Marijuana)” was issued in June 2020. The policy, which aimed to provide individuals with “reasonable access to medical cannabis”, outlined numerous issues that might arise with institutional cannabis use, including “ordering, labeling, packaging, storage, security, administration, documentation and monitoring requirements for the use of medical cannabis”. Key aspects of the policy are summarised in a table found in the Supplementary Material section (Supplementary Material 3 ).

Other relevant policies that were reviewed included the standards of practice issued by the provincial college of nurses and the college of physicians and surgeons [ 38 , 39 , 40 ], which provided direction to HCPs working in LTC about their scope of practice regarding medical and non-medical cannabis. The regional health authority’s smoke-free policy [ 41 ] also informed how inhaled forms of medical and non-medical cannabis were addressed, requiring residents to leave the facility grounds to smoke or vape cannabis. Lastly, the overarching federal Cannabis Act and Regulations provided guidance to both administrators and HCPs regarding the Canadian regulations specific to medical and non-medical cannabis [ 1 , 42 ]. Together, existing facility, regional, and national policies created a context in which cannabis was framed as neither a medicine nor a controlled substance, but something unique and complex that must be navigated by residents, family members and staff in LTC settings.

Quantitative survey

Demographic characteristics.

From the approximately 318 eligible HCPs employed at the LTC facility, a total of 71 participants consented and completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 22.3%. With regards to response rate by profession, pharmacists (50.0%) and social workers (42.9%) were best represented, followed by physicians (23.1%), nurses (21.0%), and PT/OT (11.4%).

Most respondents were women (71.8%), registered nurses (62.0%) and worked within the palliative care unit (76.1%) at the facility. The average age of the sample was 40.9 years and the largest proportion of the sample had worked in the LTC facility for 5 or less years. See Table  1 for additional details.

Knowledge about medical cannabis

HCPs reported being most knowledgeable about the therapeutic potential of cannabis (3.1/5.0), potential risks of medical cannabis (2.9/5.0), and the different ways to administer medical cannabis (2.9/5.0). They reported being least knowledgeable about the dosing of medical cannabis (2.0/5.0), how to create effective treatment plans related to medical cannabis (2.1/5.0), and the similarities and differences between different forms of cannabis products and prescription cannabinoid medications (2.2/5.0). The top three ranked knowledge gaps mirrored the items ranked lowest with regards to knowledge (see Table  2 ). Overall, there was high interest in gaining more medical cannabis knowledge, with all knowledge items scoring greater than 4 on desired knowledge level.

Practice experiences with medical cannabis

About half of HCPs reported providing care in the past month to a resident who was taking medical cannabis (54.9%) and a quarter (25.4%) to a resident that was taking non-medical cannabis. Over 60% had been approached by a resident and/or a family member to discuss the potential use of medical cannabis; however, few HCPs reported initiating these conversations. Moreover, when asked if they felt comfortable discussing medical cannabis, 32.4% of HCPs disagreed (data not shown). Less than 20% reported helping residents, either directly or indirectly, to use medical cannabis and a very small proportion (1.3–2.8%) reported assisting residents’ consumption of non-medical cannabis. With regards to authorizing the use of medical cannabis or prescribing cannabinoid medication, which in Canada can be done by either a physician or nurse practitioner, just over half of physicians reported supporting residents’ access to these types of treatment. See Table  3 for additional details.

Barriers to medical cannabis use in long-term care

Lack of knowledge, education or information about medical cannabis were reported to be barriers to medical cannabis use in LTC by most HCPs (81.7%). Moreover, the uncertain risks and benefits of medical cannabis and the lack of clinical guidelines were also perceived as barriers by 66.2% and 63.4% of HCPs, respectively. The complete list of barriers is presented in Table  4 .

Education about medical cannabis

Most of the HCPs agreed that additional education on medical cannabis would increase their comfort with discussing this treatment option with residents and family members (87.4%; data not shown). With regards to indirectly or directly administering medical cannabis to a resident, most HCPs for which this fell within their scope of practice also reported they would feel more comfortable if they had further education (59.2% and 56.4%, respectively; data not shown).

Over half of HCPs had not received any prior education related to medical cannabis (54.9%). Those that had, received it from conferences or workshops (65.6%), books or journal articles (43.8%) or through a colleague (37.5%). While almost half the sample (49.3%) reported receiving information from peer-reviewed sources, nearly a quarter received information about medical cannabis from a non-peer reviewed source or from a resident or family member. Some participants also received information from a cannabis industry source. Table  5 provides additional details.

The preferred sources of medical cannabis education were online learning programs (i.e., continuing education) (74.6%), monographs (66.2%), and topic-specific one-pagers (64.8%). See Fig.  1 for further details.

Percentage of respondents indicating prefered method of cannabis education*

Qualitative findings

A total of 12 HCPs were interviewed regarding their perceptions and experiences related to medical and non-medical cannabis in the LTC facility. This included 3 HCPs who were administrators, 6 nurses, 1 physician, 1 social worker and 1 pharmacist. Four main themes were identified.

Attitudes regarding medical cannabis: cautious support

There were mixed attitudes regarding the potential role of medical cannabis in general and in LTC populations. While some HCPs felt medical cannabis was a “good idea” for which there was beginning research regarding its health benefits, other HCPs believed additional high-quality evidence was needed prior to medical cannabis becoming a therapeutic option.

I think it’s [medical cannabis] the fair option, it helps some people, but it doesn’t help others. So, I think we need a bit more evidence and a bit more research and having it available sort of allows for that research to occur (Physician; PC07).

There appeared to be greater acceptance for medical cannabis use by individuals at end of life compared to those not considered immediately palliative (i.e., living with dementia, stroke, or traumatic brain injury), the latter of which comprise the majority of the people living in LTC settings. For individuals receiving palliative care, some HCPs perceived medical cannabis to be beneficial in managing pain, nausea, and anxiety, as well as reducing the use of other medications that may be problematic (e.g., opioids) due to their side effects. The potential value of medical cannabis in “adding quality of life and living” at the end of life was also mentioned.

I’m working on the palliative care unit right now. A lot of patients that I’ve seen use it [medical cannabis] for anxiety purposes, or for nausea… some people find beneficial. So, I’ve seen it – people find it helpful for those reasons, and then they have to take less of their other medications. So, if it’s worked well for them and that’s what they prefer to do, then I think it should be an option for people, especially if some people find it beneficial. (Registered nurse; PC03)

Within the context of LTC, several HCPs also spoke of the importance of respecting residents’ autonomy and previous experiences taking medical cannabis. The reality of a LTC facility being a resident’s “home” was particularly influential in HCPs’ support of medical cannabis being included as part of a holistic approach to care.

I guess because people live at [LTC facility’s name], that is their home and if they were at home in the community, they would be able to access it [medical cannabis]. (Registered nurse, PC02)

I think it’s a part of people’s lives. And I think if we’re allowing people to have certain things and keeping it as part of their treatment because if you look at a holistic view, preventing somebody from doing something that they’ve been doing for many years is not going to help them be accepting of other types of therapies. (Pharmacist, PC09)

Some HCPs also perceived medical cannabis as offering an alternative to medical treatments that were not consistently effective in managing challenging health conditions, such as dementia and agitation.

HCPs’ attitudes towards medical cannabis varied across different products and routes of administration. Given the existing smoke-free policy at the facility, HCPs were more supportive of edibles, oils, oral sprays or topical creams and lotions than any form of inhaled medical cannabis (i.e., smoking and vaping). They were concerned not only about lung health, environmental exposure, and maintaining a scent-free facility, but also about how to safely manage vulnerable residents travelling off the facility’s property to smoke or vape.

Medical cannabis access and use: concern, confusion, and limited conversations

According to HCPs interviewed, most residents using medical cannabis obtained their authorization prior to moving to LTC. Individuals who sought authorization after arriving at the facility struggled to have their requests acknowledged or addressed by the health care team. As one nurse shared:

I do remember I had a resident that did ask about it [medical cannabis]. And whenever it was kind of brought up, it didn’t seem to be acknowledged all the time. Or there were people who didn’t like the idea of having a resident on it. (Registered nurse; PC06)

Conversations about medical cannabis were perceived to be severely limited by the culture surrounding medical cannabis at the LTC facility. The lack of open discussion about medical cannabis was seen by some to create conflict and negatively impact the development of trust between residents, family members, and the health care team: “ Without that discussion, it does create conflict within the team and between the physician and family, and perhaps that could impact the trusting relationship” (Administrator; PA03). Further, several HCPs expressed the belief that conversations about non-pharmacological forms of medical cannabis could not be initiated by them due to policy issues; residents who expressed interest but did not have prior authorization were instead directed towards pharmaceutical forms of cannabis.

There have been residents who have asked about using cannabis. And as I said, you can’t initiate it, if they’re going to get it on their own, fair enough. That’s pretty much been the experience I’ve had with residents with just non-pharmaceutical medical cannabis . (Physician, PC07)

The only HCP-initiated conversations about medical cannabis mentioned were those occurring between pharmacists and residents, which focused on the potential side effects, benefits, and “red flags” to watch out for, such as allergic reactions.

HCPs shared that for those residents with authorization, they or a support person were responsible for ordering the medical cannabis product from an LP, which would then send the product to either the resident at the LTC facility or to their support person’s home. The cannabis product was then stored in a locked drawer in the resident’s room if they were self-administering or in a medication room if nursing staff were assisting with administration. According to one pharmacist, the pharmacy department was not permitted, due to existing federal regulations, to either directly order or dispense medical cannabis:

No, we don’t dispense any cannabis. It’s considered resident’s own. So, we don’t acquire it for them. They have to directly be the holders of it and have it provided to them directly. And I think that has more to do with the regulations within Canada, the resident has to have certain type of documentation in order to have medical cannabis. So, it’s directly to them, we’re not able to order it for them or anything like that on their behalf. (Pharmacist; PC09)

With regards to the type of medical cannabis products permitted in the facility, due to non-smoking policies and concerns about safety issues and the “smell”, combustible forms and inhaled routes of administration (i.e., joints, vaporizers, vape pens) were not allowed; instead, ingestible forms were mentioned most frequently by HCPs.

There was some confusion and concerns expressed regarding the storage and disposal of medical cannabis, which may have reflected changes in facility policies over time. Some HCPs expressed concerns about the storage of cannabis in residents’ rooms and the lack of “safeguards” to limit potential diversion and allow an accurate “count” of medical cannabis.

We have to go into our Pyxis machine to retrieve a key to open that drawer. So, by going by that you’re able to know who’s actually accessed the key, but once the key is out you have no idea how many people have used that key and accessed that drawer before it’s gone back. You have no way of knowing how much cannabis has been taken out [of the drawer] or used, because you know there’s no way to measure it. So that’s a huge problem, I find. (Registered nurse; PC01)

This nurse was particularly concerned about the potential risk of being accused of diversion:

I’m not worried about people abusing it, it’s more the worry of being accused. You know, like, if a resident says, ‘why is my cannabis running out already, I thought I had enough for a few more weeks?’ and we’re like, ‘I don’t know’, right? There’s the potential for that sort of thing to happen. (Registered nurse; PC01)

There was also a perception that there was a lack of direction from the facility regarding the appropriate disposal of medical cannabis. Most believed residents or family members were expected to remove any unused product once the resident was no longer at the facility. When such disposal was not possible, the policy was to destroy the cannabis product in a manner similar to narcotics or other controlled substances. However, variations in practice occurred with some HCPs described “throwing it in the trash” or using a medical waste disposal bin with or without a witness.

Barriers to medical cannabis use: safety, stigma and lack of knowledge

Numerous barriers to the use of medical cannabis by LTC residents were identified by HCPs. Foremost, the policies related to how cannabis products were ordered, accessed, stored, and administered were perceived to be complicated and created barriers to residents wanting to take medical cannabis, particularly those without family support. The inability of the LTC facility to order medical cannabis on behalf of a resident was perceived to be especially problematic, as described by one registered nurse:

I know when it became legal, there were a few residents who have inquired about it, but they didn’t have the family resources in place to be able to get it because I believe there’s some hoops that you have to go through to be able to have it medically prescribed in getting it on to the unit. And so, the ones who were interested in it didn’t have those supports in place, so they weren’t able to get it prescribed for them. (Registered nurse; PC05)

The lack of awareness and understanding of the regional policies related to medical cannabis by some of the clinical staff was also seen as being problematic. As one registered nurse shared:

My only concern is that there’s a lot of rules around being able to administer and how it’s [medical cannabis] administered, which can again make things a bit complicated. I would say that’s probably my biggest concern is just it’s hard to remember everything that you have to do when you’re trying to administer it or helping a resident. So, you don’t get involved. (Registered nurse; PC06)

Several HCPs attributed the lack of awareness about cannabis policy to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which overshadowed all other health issues within their facility: “ Everybody’s been so focused on COVID for a year and a half that there hasn’t been really time to really think about or educate on other things. ” (Registered nurse; PC01).

HCPs suggested that more “straight forward” and tailored policies were needed that simplified how medical cannabis was managed. Having facility-specific policies would acknowledge the uniqueness of the LTC population, who may have cognitive impairment, limited social support, and complex healthcare plans. As one nurse shared: “ If it’s a dementia patient, they can’t really administer it on their own. So how do we follow the policy to help the patient take the cannabis? How would we know when they would want to take it PRN?” (Registered nurse; PC03). It was also recommended that the policy that prevented the facility from directly ordering and supplying medical cannabis required revision so that LTC residents were not reliant on family members to gain access. Lastly, several HCPs suggested that medical cannabis policies need to be well advertised and additional training developed for clinical staff to enhance their awareness and comfort level in providing appropriate and supportive care.

There needs to be a training session… staff have to read through them [cannabis policies] and get instructions about them, sort of like a self-learning activity. But that is not part of what we do when orienting. (Registered nurse; PC02)

Another perceived barrier frequently mentioned by HCPs was their lack of knowledge regarding the potential risks and benefits of medical cannabis. There was limited understanding about the effects of medical cannabis, how it may interact with other medications and health conditions, what side effects could arise, as well as basic information about starting dose, titration, and difference between THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Without such information, HCPs were perceived to be very hesitant about recommending or supporting medical cannabis as a treatment alternative for LTC residents:

There’s lots of unknown, that’s the problem. If there were more specifics about the recreational and the medical use of cannabis, then I think health care professionals would be more likely to want to provide it to the residents. But if not, then that’s kind of what’s hindering health care professionals to provide it. (Registered nurse; PC08)

There was also substantial discussion by HCPs regarding the “stigma” that they perceived to exist within the facility regarding medical cannabis. As described by one pharmacist: “ I think the understanding of cannabis, regardless of if it’s medical or anything, it’s still considered in many people’s minds as an illicit drug. It hasn’t shaken that. And I think there’s a lot of stereotypes around the type of people that use cannabis” (Pharmacist; PC09). The stigmatization of medical cannabis was perceived to be particularly pronounced among the medical staff, which led to what was described as a “hands-off approach” with regards to authorizing medical cannabis.

Almost all HCPs and administrators interviewed recommended that education programming and resources for HCPs be developed to address the lingering stigma associated with cannabis and the knowledge gaps that exist about medical cannabis and associated policies. Several participants recommended that education initiatives should first target physicians, who were responsible for authorizing medical cannabis in the facility. Physicians were perceived to need education on when and for whom medical cannabis would be appropriate, the latest evidence regarding efficacy and safety (i.e., drug interactions), and what their obligations and responsibilities were as the authorizing HCP. Participants also thought that all HCPs could benefit from additional training regarding medical cannabis, including the different types of cannabinoids and products, the process of titration, and dosing. Some of the nurses interviewed also expressed the need for education about the legal implications of medical cannabis and their role regarding provision and administration:

I think the legal implications of cannabis use, I think that would be a good focus for the nursing group – so that they understood what their obligations were, what they could be held accountable for, those kinds of things. (Administrator; PA02)

Finally, numerous HCPs spoke of the need for “safeguards” and clear policies and procedures to ensure that clinical staff were aware of what type of medical cannabis products residents were taking, what was the “right dose”, and the possibility of cannabis interacting with other medications. As shared by one pharmacist:

So that we know that this patient is on it because there are potential drug interactions with other things that patients are taking. So, we just have to be cautious and aware that patients are doing this. Because especially right now with studies, there haven’t been a lot of great studies on drug interactions. (Pharmacist; PC09)

Non-medical cannabis use: balancing autonomy and safety

HCPs were asked about their attitudes and experiences about residents’ use of non-medical cannabis in the facility. Two disparate points of view became apparent – those that perceived non-medical cannabis as a legal substance that should be available to LTC residents given the facility was their home and those that saw non-medical cannabis as a stigmatized substance that could lead to problematic use and disruptions in the care environment.

Because it is somebody’s home and so you’re trying to honour and match what their lifestyle and aspects of their life at home were and matching that here [LTC facility]. The bad is, while it is somebody’s home, it’s the next person’s home too, and so it’s trying to balance that, right? In an institutional setting, trying to make it as home-like as possible but, at the same time, you know, monitoring and matching for what everyone’s needs are. (Registered nurse; PA01)

Professionally, I think that it creates issues in terms of trying to police the use of recreational cannabis. In terms of smoking cigarette tobacco, that’s an issue in itself. We’re a non-smoking facility. So, adding cannabis to the mix creates issues…having staff perhaps exposed or other people exposed if people are using cannabis indoors or where they’re not supposed. Or if they want to access and use cannabis outside, who’s going to take them for that? Because that creates exposure too for staff or others who may have to escort them. (Registered nurse; PA03)

HCPs frequently mentioned the complexity of managing residents’ non-medical use of cannabis given the facility’s non-smoking policy that required residents to leave the facility grounds to use inhaled forms of cannabis. With staff unable to transport residents outside, concerns were raised regarding the safety of residents, particularly in the winter months, and who would be responsible for their transfer in and out of the facility as well as monitoring how much cannabis was consumed. In addition, residents’ access to non-medical cannabis was again dependent on having a support person that was able and willing to transport the product to the facility, posing a potential equity issue for some residents:

If someone’s wanting to go smoke outside, then mobility might be an issue. If they don’t have the right wheelchair or family to take them outside for that. If they have the access. Like, if they need family to go and buy it and bring it to them, that could be more of an access issue depending on their family support. (Registered nurse; PC03)

There was specific concern expressed for individuals in the rehabilitation units who may have pre-existing substance use issues. For these individuals, HCPs were concerned that allowing access to non-medical cannabis could add to an already complex care plan. In addition, with many vulnerable residents living at the facility, concerns were raised regarding them being “incredibly suggestible” to others encouraging their consumption of cannabis:

These people – they have an addiction. For sure they’re making choices, but those choices are influenced by physical withdrawal or influenced by stress; they’re influenced by lots of things. So, I would hate to put residents in a position where that was one other [non-medical cannabis] thing they had to contend with during the rehab stay. (Administrator, PA02)

The use of cannabis for therapeutic and recreational purposes is becoming more prevalent within older adult populations, both in the community as well as within healthcare institutions. There has also been growing interest in the possible role of medical cannabis for select chronic, rehabilitative, and palliative health conditions, frequently found among individuals residing within LTC settings. LTC facilities, thus, face the complex practice and policy implications associated with a substance that has been surrounded in controversy for close to a century. This case study is among the first to explore in one LTC facility in Western Canada how cannabis use is being addressed following the legalization of non-medical cannabis products, and what challenges exist. It provides an important snapshot of the complexities surrounding cannabis use in LTC and a foundation for future research.

Cannabis use in LTC settings: a clash of cultures

One challenge experienced by people residing in LTC facilities is the tension that exists between social and medical models of care that most facilities are founded on. Historically, LTC facilities have operated as what Goffman [ 43 ] termed “total institutions”, places where every aspect of a person’s life was controlled by others, paternalism dominated, and the medical needs of people were what drove care practices. Aspects of the total institution still exist, as noted in this case study, whereby cannabis use is in the control of the HCPs; it is dispensed during medication administration times rather than being freely available for use by the resident when they so desire as would be in a person’s home. In trying to create more home-like environments and meet the broad range of social and emotional needs of residents, resident-centred care practices and relational models of care have emerged [ 44 ]. Within this milieu, resident autonomy and choice are at the forefront and HCPs are there to assist, rather than take control of residents’ daily lives. In the most ideal settings, behaviours that are considered ‘risky’, like alcohol consumption, are treated as social experiences, not care tasks to be managed [ 45 ]. The tension arises, however, that despite the desire to be resident-centred, most LTC facilities are highly regulated by governments, putting limits to resident choice and, therefore, their autonomy [ 45 ]. While HCPs in our study acknowledged that residents should have the right to use medical or non-medical cannabis, the regional and institutional policies surrounding safety and the rights of other residents and staff to not be exposed to potentially risky behaviour underscored many of their views. LTC facilities would be wise to consider the principles of dignity of risk [ 46 ] with relation to cannabis consumption/use along the frail elderly population that reside in the home.

Cannabis policies and LTC: one size doesn’t fit all

The cannabis policies developed at the advent of legalization, without consideration of the unique populations and healthcare challenges that exist within LTC facilities, created numerous barriers to residents accessing and using cannabis, as well as for HCPs attempting to provide appropriate care. One of the most significant challenges experienced by LTC residents in our study was the inability to obtain a medical cannabis authorization from a physician working in the facility. Another significant challenge was the regional policy that medical cannabis could not be couriered directly to the LTC pharmacy; instead, the resident or their support persons were responsible for ordering and bringing cannabis products into the facility. Both challenges created enormous inequity in which residents that lacked the physical and cognitive ability to obtain authorization and order medical cannabis from an LP or were without a support person willing and able to obtain medical cannabis on their behalf, were unable to access medical cannabis. Given the nature of LTC populations, these policies led to only a few residents being able to access and use medical cannabis as part of their care.

Another policy that had substantial safety implications for residents wanting to use inhaled forms of cannabis was the regional and institutional no smoking policies that prevented both tobacco and cannabis products from being consumed within the centre as well as on the grounds. As a result, residents had to make their own way, or be accompanied by a support person, to walk approximately 300 m to the public sidewalk where they were allowed to smoke or vape cannabis. With the LTC facility located in a region where winter temperatures can reach − 35 Celsius and sidewalks are covered in snow and ice, this poses significant risk for residents who may be at heightened risk of falls and utilizing assisted walking devices. Similar safety implications of smoke-free policies have been identified in previous research [ 47 ].

Lastly, the policies surrounding the storage and self-administration of medical cannabis for those residents with the physical and emotional capacity (or with a support person willing to administer) may pose potential safety and liability risks and contribute to the concerns held by some HCPs about the use of cannabis in LTC. While residents’ autonomy must be respected, as well as their own expertise with regards to medical cannabis use, the value of standardized medication protocols to ensure the safety of residents as well as to inform care decisions must be acknowledged. The tension experienced in balancing LTC residents’ autonomy with health and safety concerns in the context of substance use has been cited in a recent scoping review [ 48 ] as well as prior research that has examined the use of tobacco in residential care settings [ 49 ].

The policy-related challenges identified by study participants suggest that consultations with LTC residents, families and HCPs are urgently needed to develop and refine cannabis policies that address the needs and reality of individuals living and receiving care in LTC. Future policy reviews must balance LTC residents’ autonomy with the safety issues associated with cannabis use (i.e., dignity of risk), particularly among older adults and those with cognitive and physical impairments. Approaching cannabis policies and procedures in LTC from a harm reduction perspective [ 50 ] with regards to supporting safer consumption of medical cannabis (e.g., route of administration, designated consumption areas) may also be important. Further, the unique context of LTC must also be acknowledged in that for many residents, a LTC facility is their home, and will continue to be so until the end of their lives. But the shared nature of a LTC setting requires that some boundaries be established to protect all residents, as well as those working within LTC. From a staff perspective, a review of policies related to the administration and documentation of cannabis use is needed to protect them from claims of diversion as well as other medicolegal challenges.

Cannabis knowledge gap and stigma in LTC

Across both the quantitative and qualitative data, the gap in knowledge regarding cannabis and the need for continuing education for HCPs working in LTC were readily apparent. When HCPs are unfamiliar about the various forms of medical cannabis, appropriate dosing and titration schedules, and routes of administration, they are hindered in their ability to engage in shared decision making with LTC residents as well as provide high-quality care [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Education is particularly needed that is tailored to the unique risks and benefits of medical cannabis use among LTC populations, including those living with physical and cognitive impairment. Older adults may be more sensitive to the side effects of cannabis due to changes in how medications and drugs are metabolised, and the predominance of polypharmacy among those residing in LTC may further complicate how individuals respond to cannabis [ 55 ]. Therefore, HCPs working in LTC must be aware of how cannabis use may impact individuals’ mobility, memory, and behaviour, as well as the potential for dependency, particularly among those who have experienced substance use issues in the past.

Beyond basic education regarding cannabis and its effects, HCPs must also become aware and informed about existing federal, regional, and institutional policies as well as professional practice standards regarding both medical and non-medical cannabis. The study findings highlighted the uncertainty many HCPs experienced regarding how medical and non-medical cannabis was to be accessed, authorized, administered, stored, and disposed within the LTC facility and what was within their professional scope of practice. Legal concerns about liability, workplace safety, and diversion were also raised.

It is important that future cannabis education programs targeting LTC settings also address the underlying stigma and stereotypes that still surround cannabis use [ 56 , 57 ], despite the existence of a medical cannabis program in Canada for over 20 years and the recent legalization of non-medical cannabis. Experiential training that promotes non-judgmental communication that avoids stigmatizing language (e.g., user, addict, marijuana) and considers both the risks and benefits of cannabis use, particularly within the context of end-of-life care, will help address the stigma that HCPs and LTC residents and families may hold towards cannabis.

With the legalization of cannabis in many regions around the world, it is imperative that undergraduate health professional training programs include information about both medical and non-medical cannabis. Currently, there is a knowledge gap among HCPs due to the lack of standardized curriculum for medical cannabis across nursing or medical schools [ 35 , 58 ]. Understanding such foundational knowledge such as the endocannabinoid system, the different forms and types of cannabis, and the potential health effects will enable physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other HCPs to engage in informed conversations with individuals and families both within and beyond LTC [ 33 ]. In addition, the development of continuing education programs focused on cannabis will ensure practicing HCPs have current knowledge about cannabis, including existing policies and programs relevant to medical and non-medical cannabis. For example, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health created asynchronous e-learning modules to provide evidence-based knowledge for various clinicians [ 59 ].

Non-medical cannabis use in LTC: it’s legal but…

Despite non-medical cannabis being a legal substance for over three years in Canada at the time of the case study, the use of non-medical cannabis by LTC residents was considered controversial amongst the HCPs interviewed. Not only were HCPs limited in their ability to support the use of non-medical cannabis due to regional policies that prohibited non-medical cannabis consumption at any healthcare facility and surrounding grounds but concerns about potential safety risks and disruptions to the care environment made some HCPs hesitant about supporting residents’ use of non-medical cannabis.

Notwithstanding these challenges, at least a quarter of HCPs surveyed reported providing care to a LTC resident who used non-medical cannabis, which suggests that regulatory and policy changes are required to ensure there is equity across LTC residents who may express interest in non-medical cannabis, as well as to address the unique safety and care issues associated with recreational cannabis use in LTC populations. Similar to medical cannabis, LTC residents’ autonomy must be considered in future policy changes related to non-medical cannabis to facilitate care that is free from stigma and bias, respects residents’ rights to make informed decisions and to live with risk, and to create a home-like environment where residents can engage in activities that were an important part of their lives before entering LTC.

Lessons can be drawn from literature that has examined the use of other legal substances, such as alcohol and tobacco in LTC [ 48 , 60 ], and the need to develop person-centered care plans that ensure the safety of the individual, fellow residents, and the healthcare team.

Limitations

Like all case studies, the findings cannot be extrapolated to other LTC settings and populations. Given that this study was undertaken in Canada, which has a socialized healthcare system and legalized both medical and non-medical cannabis, the experiences and attitudes of HCPs who participated may be unique and limit the generalizability of the findings. However, there are lessons to be learned regarding the challenges that residents in LTC facilities face in using medical and non-medical cannabis, as well as the potential need for both education and policy reform to better support HCPs in providing appropriate, safe, and person-centred care of LTC residents. In addition, the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data allowed triangulation during the data analysis and helped improved the rigor of the findings [ 61 ]. Recruitment and data collection for this study also occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the response rate was lower than desired and there was limited diversity among study participants with regards health profession designation. However, the proportion of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other allied health professions reflected the overall staff composition of the LTC facility.

Implications for future research

Beyond the policy and practice implications discussed earlier, the study findings also point to the urgent need for research focused on cannabis use among populations commonly found within LTC settings. The lack of evidence regarding the potential health effects of cannabis in the management of diseases such as dementia, arthritis, Parkinson’s, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis led many of the HCPs interviewed to be hesitant about authorizing and supervising cannabis use for LTC residents living with these conditions. While there is a growing number of studies being undertaken focused on medical cannabis, many are limited by their sample size and study design. It is only through high-quality clinical trials that evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis that a change in practice will occur.

Future medical cannabis research must also be developed in a manner that is inclusive of older adults and those living in LTC. The exclusion of such populations from clinical research has been previously identified as problematic [ 62 ], resulting in research findings that lack generalizability and pose challenges in determining the applicability of research to older adults who may be living with numerous co-morbidities and using multiple medications. While the inclusion of older adults in medical cannabis clinical trials may be more methodologically and ethically challenging, it will lead to evidence that will inform both future policies and practices.

Lastly, our case study offers insight into the reality and challenges of cannabis use by residents of one LTC facility. Additional research across different jurisdictions is needed to explore how LTC settings are addressing cannabis use and to learn from their experiences. We encourage the continued use of mixed methods study designs to ensure the experiences and perspectives of residents, family members and HCPs are captured alongside administrative data related to medical and non-medical cannabis use.

With the legalization of medical and non-medical cannabis in jurisdictions around the world, LTC facilities will be obligated to develop policies, procedures and healthcare services that are able to accommodate residents’ use of cannabis in a respectful and evidence-informed manner. Balancing the safety concerns against the potential therapeutic value of cannabis, as well as considering residents’ autonomy and the home-like environment of LTC, will be important considerations in how cannabis use is addressed and regulated. Our case study highlights the lack of knowledge, inequities, and stigma that continue to surround cannabis in LTC. There is an urgent need for research that not only explores the potential risks and benefits of cannabis, but also informs the development of more nuanced and equitable policies and education resources that will support reasonable and informed access to medical and non-medical cannabis for older adults and others living in LTC.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the small sample size drawn from one health care facility but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Cannabidiol

Healthcare provider

Long–term care

Tetrahydrocannabinol

Licensed Producer

Government of Canada. Cannabis Act (S.C. 2018, c.16). 2018. http://canlii.ca/t/5392s retrieved on 2019-10-07.

Sandhu HS, Anderson LN, Busse JW. Characteristics of canadians likely to try or increase cannabis use following legalization for nonmedical purposes: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2019;7(2):E399–404.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Statistics Canada. National Cannabis Survey, third quarter 2019. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191030/dq191030a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. Research to Insights: Cannabis in Canada. 2023. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2023006-eng.htm

Lau N, Sales P, Averill S, Murphy F, Sato SO, Murphy S. A safer alternative: cannabis substitution as harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;34(6):654–9.

Bobitt J, Qualls SH, Schuchman M, Wickersham R, Lum HD, Arora K, et al. Qualitative analysis of cannabis use among older adults in Colorado. Drugs Aging. 2019;36(7):655–66.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reynolds IR, Fixen DR, Parnes BL, Lum HD, Shanbhag P, Church S, et al. Characteristics and patterns of marijuana use in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(11):2167–71.

Baumbusch J, Sloan Yip I. Exploring new use of cannabis among older adults. Clin Gerontol. 2021;44(1):25–31.

Tumati S, Lanctôt KL, Wang RD, Li A, Davis A, Herrmann N. Medical cannabis use among older adults in Canada: self-reported data on types and amount used, and perceived effects. Drugs Aging. 2022;39(2):153–63.

Government of Canada. Data on cannabis for medical purposes. 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/research-data/medical-purpose.html

Cooper ZD, Abrams DI, Gust S, Salicrup A, Throckmorton DC. Challenges for clinical cannabis and cannabinoid research in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2021;2021(58):114–22.

Piomelli D, Solomon R, Abrams D, Balla A, Grant I, Marcotte T, et al. Regulatory barriers to research on cannabis and cannabinoids: a proposed path forward. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2019;4(1):21–32.

O’Brien M, McDougall JJ. Cannabis and joints: scientific evidence for the alleviation of osteoarthritis pain by cannabinoids. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2018;40:104–9.

Babson KA, Sottile J, Morabito D. Cannabis, cannabinoids, and sleep: a review of the literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19(4):23.

Hillen JB, Soulsby N, Alderman C, Caughey GE. Safety and effectiveness of cannabinoids for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:2042098619846993.

Chagas MHN, Zuardi AW, Tumas V, Pena-Pereira MA, Sobreira ET, Bergamaschi MM, et al. Effects of cannabidiol in the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory double-blind trial. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28(11):1088–98.

Shohet A, Khlebtovsky A, Roizen N, Roditi Y, Djaldetti R. Effect of medical cannabis on thermal quantitative measurements of pain in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(3):486–93.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Herrmann N, Ruthirakuhan M, Gallagher D, Verhoeff NPLG, Kiss A, Black SE, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of nabilone for agitation in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(11):1161–73.

Shelef A, Barak Y, Berger U, Paleacu D, Tadger S, Plopsky I, et al. Safety and efficacy of medical cannabis oil for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: an open label, add-on, pilot study. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2016;51(1):15–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Volicer L, Stelly M, Morris J, Mclaughlin J, Volicer BJ. Effects of dronabinol on anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1997;12(9):913–9.

Cyr C, Arboleda MF, Aggarwal SK, Balneaves LG, Daeninck P, Néron A, et al. Cannabis in palliative care: current challenges and practical recommendations. Ann Palliat Med. 2018;7(4):463–77.

Pooyania S, Ethans K, Szturm T, Casey A, Perry D. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover pilot study assessing the effect of nabilone on spasticity in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):703–7.

Wilsey B, Marcotte TD, Deutsch R, Zhao H, Prasad H, Phan A. An exploratory human laboratory experiment evaluating vaporized cannabis in the treatment of neuropathic pain from spinal cord injury and disease. J Pain. 2016;17(9):982–1000.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grenier K, Ponnambalam F, Lee D, Lauwers R, Bhalerao S. Cannabis in the treatment of traumatic brain injury: a primer for clinicians. Can J Neurol Sci. 2019;47(1):11–7.

Minerbi A, Hauser W, Fitzcharles MA. Medical cannabis for older patients. Drugs Aging. 2019;36(1):39–51.

MacCallum CA, Russo EB. Practical considerations in medical cannabis administration and dosing. Eur J Int Med. 2018;49:12–9.

Bertram JR, Porath A, Seitz D, Kalant H, Krishnamoorthy A, Nickerson J, et al. Canadian guidelines on cannabis use disorder among older adults. Can Geriatr J. 2020;23(1):135–42.

Banerjee S. Multimorbidity–older adults need health care that can count past one. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):587–9.

Bom J, Bakx P, Rellstab S. Well-being right before and after a permanent nursing home admission. Health Econ. 2022;31(12):2558–74.

Calkins M, Brush J. Honoring individual choice in long-term residential communities when it involves risk: a person-centered approach. J Gerontol Nurs. 2016;42(8):12–7.

Yin R. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.

Balneaves LG, Alraja A, Ziemianski D, McCuaig F, Ware M. A national needs assessment of Canadian nurse practitioners regarding cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2018;3(1):66–73.

Ziemianski D, Capler R, Tekanoff R, Lacasse A, Luconi F, Ware MA. Cannabis in medicine: a national educational needs assessment among Canadian physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:50–2.

Article   Google Scholar  

Balneaves LG, Alraja AA. Guarding their practice: a descriptive study of Canadian nursing policies and education related to medical cannabis. BMC Nurs. 2019;18(1):66.

Fox RD. Revisiting discrepancy analysis in continuing medical education: a conceptual model 1983. J Contin Health Prof. 2011;31(1):71–6.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba. Medical cannabis: Guidelines for Manitoba nurses. 2019. https://www.crnm.mb.ca/uploads/document/document_file_247.pdf?t=1549645011

College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba. Practice direction: RN(NP) authorization of medical cannabis. 2018. https://www.crnm.mb.ca/uploads/document/document_file_252.pdf?t=1538755351

The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba. Standard of practice: Cannabis for medical purpose. 2020. https://cpsm.mb.ca/assets/Standards of Practice/Standard of Practice Authorizing Cannabis for Medical Purposes.pdf.

Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Smoke-Free Policy. 2014. https://wrha.mb.ca/files/wrha-policy-10-00-010.pdf

Government of Canada. Cannabis regulations (SOR/2018 – 144) [. 2018. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/SOR-2018-144/index.html

Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situations of mental patients and other inmates. Oxford, England: Doubleday (Anchor); 1961.

White-Chu EF, Graves WJ, Godfrey SM, Bonner A, Sloane P. Beyond the medical model: the culture change revolution in long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(6):370–8.

Chivers S. Make mine a double. In: Armstrong P, Daly T, editors. Exercising choice in long-term residential care. Montreal, QC: RR Donnelley; 2017. pp. 55–8.

Woolford MH, de Lacy-Vawdon C, Bugeja L, Weller C, Ibrahim JE. Applying dignity of risk principles to improve quality of life for vulnerable persons. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;35(1):122–30.

Schultz ASH, Finegan B, Nykiforuk CIJ, Kvern MA. A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property. CMAJ. 2011;183(18):2085–6.

De Graaf L, Janssen M, Roelofs T, Luijkx K. Substance use and misuse of older adults living in residential care facilities: a scoping review from a person-centred care approach. Ageing Soc. 2021;43(6):1–27.

Adler G, Greeman M, Parker H, Kuskowski M. Self-determination and residents who smoke. J Social Work Long-Term Care. 2002;1(4):19–30.

Lau N, Sales P, Averill S, Murphy F, Sato SO, Murphy S. Responsible and controlled use: older cannabis users and harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(8):709–18.

Clobes TA, Palmier LA, Gagnon M, Klaiman C, Arellano M. The impact of education on attitudes toward medical cannabis. PEC Innov. 2022;1:100009.

Croker JA, Bobitt J, Sanders S, Arora K, Mueller K, Kaskie B. Cannabis and end-of-life care: a snapshot of hospice planning and experiences among Illinois medical cannabis patients with a terminal diagnosis. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2022;39(3):345–52.

Hachem Y, Abdallah SJ, Rueda S, Wiese JL, Mehra K, Rup J, et al. Healthcare practitioner perceptions on barriers impacting cannabis prescribing practices. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):1–12.

Hope J, Schoonhoven L, Griffiths P, Gould L, Bridges J. I’ll put up with things for a long time before I need to call anybody: face work, the Total Institution and the perpetuation of care inequalities. Sociol Health Illn. 2022;44(2):469–87.

Williams AR. Ethical dilemmas in counseling older adults on cannabis use: less science, more quandaries. Generations J. 2020;44(4):1–5.

Skliamis K, Benschop A, Korf DJ. Cannabis users and stigma: a comparison of users from European countries with different cannabis policies. Eur J Crimin. 2022;19(6):1483–500.

Troup LJ, Erridge S, Ciesluk B, Sodergren MH. Perceived stigma of patients undergoing treatment with cannabis-based medicinal products. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2022;19(12).

Evanoff AB, Quan T, Dufault C, Awad M, Bierut LJ. Physicians-in-training are not prepared to prescribe medical marijuana. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;180:151–5.

Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health. Cannabis and older adults. https://ccsmh.ca/cannabis-and-older-adults-project/

Grossi A, Holmes A, Ibrahim JE. Use of alcohol in long term care settings: a comparative analysis of personal choice, public health advice and the law. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(1):9–e141.

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

Crome P, Lally F, Cherubini A, Oristrell J, Beswick AD, Clarfield AM, et al. Exclusion of older people from clinical trials: professional views from nine European countries participating in the PREDICT study. Drugs Aging. 2011;28(8):667–77.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the healthcare professionals that graciously took the time to share their thoughts about cannabis use in long-term care settings. In addition, Ms. Sina Barkman, Chief Human Resources Officer, Riverview Health Centre, helped the research team navigate the complexity of conducting research in long-term care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding for this study was received from the Riverview Health Centre Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Lynda G. Balneaves, Abeer A. Alraja, Genevieve Thompson, Jamie L. Penner & Daniella Scerbo

Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Philip St. John

Riverview Health Centre, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Joanne van Dyck

College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

Lynda G. Balneaves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

“L.G.B, G.T, J.P and P.StJ. conceptualised the study. A.A.A. and D.S. engaged in recruitment and data collection activities. L.G.B. and A.A.A. analysed and interpreted the quantitative and qualitative data and developed a first draft of the manuscript, with assistance from G.T. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynda G. Balneaves .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Manitoba Research Ethics Board (R1-2021:011 (HS24693)) and was approved by the Riverview Health Centre Research Committee. Implied consent was received from participants who completed the survey and written informed consent was obtained from all participants who completed an interview. We confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant ethical guidelines and regulations, (i.e., Tri-Council Policy Statement).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Balneaves, L.G., Alraja, A.A., Thompson, G. et al. Cannabis use in a Canadian long-term care facility: a case study. BMC Geriatr 24 , 467 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05074-2

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 29 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05074-2

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

• Medical cannabis
• Non-medical cannabis
• Long-term care
• Residential care
• Older adults

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

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

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 27.5.2024 in Vol 8 (2024)

This is a member publication of University of Colorado Denver HARC

Lessons Learned From a Sequential Mixed-Mode Survey Design to Recruit and Collect Data From Case-Control Study Participants: Formative Evaluation

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Amanda D Tran 1 , MPH   ; 
• Alice E White 1 , MPH   ; 
• Michelle R Torok 1 , PhD   ; 
• Rachel H Jervis 2 , MPH   ; 
• Bernadette A Albanese 3 , MD, MPH   ; 
• Elaine J Scallan Walter 1 , MA, PhD  

1 Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States

2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, United States

3 Adams County Health Department, Brighton, CO, United States

Corresponding Author:

Elaine J Scallan Walter, MA, PhD

Department of Epidemiology

Colorado School of Public Health

University of Colorado

13001 East 17th Place

3rd Floor, Mail Stop B119

Aurora, CO, 80045

United States

Phone: 1 303 724 5162

Email: [email protected]

Background: Sequential mixed-mode surveys using both web-based surveys and telephone interviews are increasingly being used in observational studies and have been shown to have many benefits; however, the application of this survey design has not been evaluated in the context of epidemiological case-control studies.

Objective: In this paper, we discuss the challenges, benefits, and limitations of using a sequential mixed-mode survey design for a case-control study assessing risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Colorado adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were randomly selected and matched to those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result from March to April 2021. Participants were first contacted by SMS text message to complete a self-administered web-based survey asking about community exposures and behaviors. Those who did not respond were contacted for a telephone interview. We evaluated the representativeness of survey participants to sample populations and compared sociodemographic characteristics, participant responses, and time and resource requirements by survey mode using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Of enrolled case and control participants, most were interviewed by telephone (308/537, 57.4% and 342/648, 52.8%, respectively), with overall enrollment more than doubling after interviewers called nonresponders. Participants identifying as female or White non-Hispanic, residing in urban areas, and not working outside the home were more likely to complete the web-based survey. Telephone participants were more likely than web-based participants to be aged 18-39 years or 60 years and older and reside in areas with lower levels of education, more linguistic isolation, lower income, and more people of color. While there were statistically significant sociodemographic differences noted between web-based and telephone case and control participants and their respective sample pools, participants were more similar to sample pools when web-based and telephone responses were combined. Web-based participants were less likely to report close contact with an individual with COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94) but more likely to report community exposures, including visiting a grocery store or retail shop (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.12), restaurant or cafe or coffee shop (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.20-1.92), attending a gathering (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.34-2.15), or sport or sporting event (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.05-1.88). The web-based survey required an average of 0.03 (SD 0) person-hours per enrolled participant and US $920 in resources, whereas the telephone interview required an average of 5.11 person-hours per enrolled participant and US $70,000 in interviewer wages.

Conclusions: While we still encountered control recruitment challenges noted in other observational studies, the sequential mixed-mode design was an efficient method for recruiting a more representative group of participants for a case-control study with limited impact on data quality and should be considered during public health emergencies when timely and accurate exposure information is needed to inform control measures.

Introduction

Often used during disease outbreak investigations, case-control studies that retrospectively compare people who have a disease (case participants) with people who do not have the disease (control participants) are an efficient and relatively inexpensive method of identifying potential disease risk factors to guide control measures and interventions. Perhaps the most critical and challenging component of conducting a case-control study is the recruitment of appropriate control participants who are from the same source population as case participants [ 1 ]. Because control participants are not ill and may not be connected to the outbreak, they may be less motivated to complete a lengthy questionnaire that collects personal information and detailed exposure histories [ 2 - 4 ]. Moreover, with the increased use of mobile telephones and the routine use of caller ID, study participants contacted by traditional telephone-based survey methodologies may be less likely to answer the telephone [ 5 , 6 ], further reducing the opportunity for participant screening and recruitment.

Recruitment challenges are not unique to case-control studies, and other types of observational studies have shifted from traditional telephone interviews to web-based surveys with the goal of reaching larger groups of people more efficiently and at a lower cost [ 7 - 12 ]. While offering some advantages over traditional telephone interviews, web-based surveys often experience lower response rates and lower data quality [ 13 ], and some studies have found demographic differences between telephone and web-based survey participants, likely driven in part by disparities in internet connectivity and access [ 14 ]. For this reason, researchers have increasingly used both telephone interviews and web-based surveys in a sequential mixed-mode design, first contacting participants using a self-administered web-based survey, and then following up with nonresponders with an interviewer-administered telephone survey [ 15 ]. In other types of observational studies, this mixed-mode design has been shown to reduce selection bias, reduce costs, improve data quality, and result in higher response rates and faster participant recruitment [ 16 , 17 ], making it an appealing design choice for case-control studies.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, and throughout many countries, public health or other governmental authorities implemented stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, and other public health interventions to reduce disease transmission. In the absence of adequate data-driven evidence about community risk factors for COVID-19 transmission, we implemented a sequential mixed-mode case-control study design in Colorado to evaluate community exposures and behaviors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and inform public health control measures. While the benefits and limitations of sequential mixed-mode designs have been well-documented in other contexts [ 14 , 16 , 18 - 20 ], they have not been examined in the context of rapidly implemented epidemiological case-control studies. In this paper, we discuss the challenges, benefits, and limitations of using a sequential mixed-mode survey design using web-based surveys disseminated via SMS text message and telephone interviews for a case-control study assessing exposures during a public health emergency. Specific aims are (1) to compare the sociodemographic characteristics of web-based and telephone survey participants, (2) to evaluate the representativeness of survey participants to the sample population, (3) to assess the completeness of participant responses by survey mode, and (4) to estimate the time and resources required to recruit web-based and telephone survey participants.

Case-Control Study Design and Implementation

The case-control study was conducted among Colorado adults aged 18 years and older who had a positive (case) or negative (control) SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test result in Colorado’s electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) system with a specimen collection date from March 16 to April 29, 2021 [ 21 ]. Eligible individuals testing positive with a completed routine public health interview in Colorado’s COVID-19 surveillance system were randomly selected and individually matched on age (±10 years), zip code (urban areas) or region (rural and frontier areas), and specimen collection date (±3 days) with up to 20 individuals with a negative test, with the goal of enrolling 2 matched controls per enrolled case.

Self-administered (web-based) and interviewer-administered (telephone) case and control surveys were developed in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University). REDCap is a secure, web-based platform designed to support data capture for research studies [ 22 ]. The surveys asked about contact with a person with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, travel history, employment, mask use, and community exposure settings (bar or club; church, religious, or spiritual gathering; gathering; grocery or retail shopping; gym or fitness center; health care setting; restaurant, cafe, or coffee shop; salon, spa, or barber; social event; or sports or sporting events) during the 14 days before illness onset or specimen submission. The full survey questionnaire is available in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Demographic data were obtained from Colorado’s COVID-19 case surveillance system and the control survey. Web-based surveys were offered in English and Spanish and included clarifying language, prompts, skip logic, text piping, and progress bars. Interviewers used computer-assisted telephone interviewing in REDCap with scripting and language line services when needed. Questions and response options were identically worded in the web-based and telephone surveys, with the exception of a “refused” option for questions in the telephone survey.

Using the Twilio integration in REDCap, selected individuals were sent an SMS text message to the telephone number provided at the time of testing (which may include both landlines and mobile phones) 3 to 7 days after their specimen collection date, inviting them to complete the web-based survey. A team of trained interviewers began contacting nonresponders for telephone interviews approximately 3 hours after the initial SMS text message was sent, making 1 contact attempt for individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and up to 2 contact attempts for those testing negative. Interviewers only contacted as many controls by telephone as needed to enroll 2 matched controls per enrolled case. The web-based survey link was resent via SMS text message or sent via email when requested. When possible, voicemail messages were left encouraging SMS text message recipients to complete the web-based survey. As the goal of the case-control study was to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from community exposures, we only included surveys that had responses to all 15 community exposure questions. Partial surveys that did not have complete community exposure data were excluded from analyses. Individuals were also excluded if they reported living in an institution, close contact with a household member with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, receiving ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (which was not universally available in Colorado at the time of the study), symptom onset date >7 days from specimen collection (case participants), a prior positive COVID-19 result (control participants), or providing personal identifying information in the web-based survey that was inconsistent with information from the ELR system (control participants).

Evaluation of a Sequential Mixed-Mode Survey Design

We evaluated the impact of conducting the COVID-19 case-control study using a sequential mixed-mode design by (1) comparing the sociodemographic characteristics of web-based and telephone survey participants, (2) evaluating the representativeness of study participants to the sample population, (3) assessing the completeness of participant responses by survey mode, and (4) estimating the time and resources required to recruit web-based and telephone survey participants. All analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute).

Comparison of Web-Based and Telephone Survey Participants

Case and control participants were eligible individuals who completed the web-based or telephone survey. We compared the demographic characteristics (age, gender, race and ethnicity, geographic location, working outside the home, and socioeconomic factors) of case and control participants completing the web-based and telephone survey to each other using 2-tailed t tests, Pearson χ 2 , or Fisher exact tests. Socioeconomic factors, which are not routinely asked in surveillance and therefore not included in the survey, were evaluated by aggregating mean scores for 4 Colorado EnviroScreen indicators (less than high school education, linguistic isolation, low income, and people of color) based on the participant’s county of residence. Colorado EnviroScreen (version 1.0; Colorado State University and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) is a publicly available environmental justice mapping tool developed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Colorado State University that evaluates 35 distinct environmental, health, economic, and demographic indicators. Colorado EnviroScreen scores range from 0 to 100, with the highest score representing the highest burden of health injustice.

Representativeness of Study Participants

We compared the demographic characteristics (as described earlier) of case and control participants completing the web-based and telephone surveys (separately and combined) to the sample pool of all randomly selected individuals testing positive (case sample pool) or negative (control sample pool) for SARS-CoV-2 using 2-tailed t tests, Pearson χ 2 , or Fisher exact tests.

Participant Responses

We evaluated data completeness and differential responses between web-based and telephone survey modes by comparing responses to exposure and behavior questions we deemed prone to social desirability bias (close contact with individuals with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, community exposures, travel, and mask use). Two bivariate logistic regression models, the first adjusting for case-control status and the second adjusting for case-control status and sociodemographic variables shown to be associated with mode effects (age, gender, race and ethnicity, and geographic location), examined the association between survey mode and participant response. Question nonresponse, where data were missing or refused, was evaluated for these questions as well as for other questions with free-text or multiple-choice response options (industry, occupation, reasons for COVID-19 testing, and mask type).

Time and Resource Needs

The time spent by study personnel contacting potential participants by SMS text message and telephone was obtained from self-recorded data in timesheets and used to calculate the person-hours required per enrolled participant. Total expenditures for the web-based and telephone surveys were calculated using staff wages and Twilio texting costs (an average of US $0.008 for a 160-character SMS text message).

Ethical Considerations

The case-control study was deemed by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board to be public health surveillance and not human participant research and was therefore exempt from full approval and requirements for informed consent (protocol 21-2973).

Case and Control Participant Enrollment

The case sample pool included 1323 individuals. Of these, 318 (24%) responded to the web-based survey, and 331 (25%) were interviewed by telephone ( Figure 1 ). A total of 537 (40.6%) case participants were enrolled after excluding 78 (5.9%) partial and 34 (2.6%) ineligible survey responses. Of the 10,898 individuals in the control sample pool, 1072 (9.8%) responded to the web-based survey, and 1268 (11.6%) were interviewed by telephone. A total of 648 (5.9%) control participants were enrolled after excluding 1565 (14.4%) partial and 127 (1.2%) ineligible surveys. Of the enrolled case and control participants, most were interviewed by telephone (308/537, 57.4% and 342/648, 52.8%, respectively).

Case participants completing the web-based and telephone surveys were similar in age (mean 37, SD 13.21 and 14.69 years, respectively), whereas web-based control participants were slightly older than those completing the telephone survey (mean 38, SD 12.44 vs mean 36, SD 12.62 years, respectively; Table 1 ). For both case and control participants, those aged 40-59 years were more likely to complete the web-based survey, whereas participants aged 18-39 years and 60 years and older were more likely to complete the telephone survey. Web-based case and control participants were more likely to identify as female, White, non-Hispanic, reside in urban areas, and be less likely to work outside the home. Compared to web-based case and control participants, telephone participants had higher EnviroScreen scores for all socioeconomic indicators, indicating they resided in counties with larger populations of individuals with less than high school education, linguistic isolation, low income, and people of color.

a Individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

b Individuals with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result.

c P <.05; control participant web-based versus telephone.

d P <.01; survey mode (web-based, telephone, and web-based and telephone combined) versus sample pool.

e P <.05; case participant web-based versus telephone.

f P <.05; survey mode (web-based, telephone, and web-based and telephone combined) versus sample pool.

g Information on sex and working outside the home were not available from Colorado’s electronic laboratory reporting system for control participants.

h Not available.

i Colorado EnviroScreen is an environmental justice mapping tool. Scores are assigned at the county level, with a higher score indicating that an area is more likely to be affected by the indicated health injustice.

There were statistically significant sociodemographic differences noted between web-based and telephone case and control participants and their respective sample pools ( Table 1 ). More web-based case participants identified as female (134/228, 58.8%) than those in the case sample pool (642/1318, 48.7%). More web-based control participants identified as White, non-Hispanic (205/267, 76.8%) than those in the control sample pool (4467/7812, 57.2%) and more often resided in urban areas (247/306, 80.7%) than those in the control sample pool (7841/10,898, 71.9%). Case and control participants were more similar to their respective sample pools when evaluated as a single group (total enrolled).

In the model adjusting for case or control status only, web-based participants were less likely to report close contact with an individual with COVID-19 when compared to telephone participants (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94) but more likely to report community exposures including visiting a grocery store or retail shop (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.12), visiting a restaurant or cafe or coffee shop (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.20-1.92), attending a gathering outside the home (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.34-2.15), or attending or participating in a sport or sporting event (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.05-1.88) in 14 days before symptom onset or specimen collection ( Table 2 ). When adjusted for case or control status, age, gender, race and ethnicity, and geographic location, the only associations that remained statistically significant were close contact (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.88) and gatherings (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.85).

a Full survey questions are available in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

b Adjusted for case or control status.

c OR: odds ratio.

d Adjusted for case or control status, age, gender, race and ethnicity, and geographic location.

e N/A: not applicable.

Question nonresponse was low across both modalities, with similar ranges of missingness between the web-based survey (0/535, 0% to 22/535, 4.1%) and telephone survey (2/650, 0.3% to 34/650, 5.2%). Nonresponse to industry, occupation, and masking questions was higher in the telephone survey (9/650, 1.4% to 34/650, 5.2%) than the web-based survey (1/535, 0.2% to 22/535, 4.1%; Table 2 ).

Over the course of the study, staff spent a cumulative 15 hours randomly selecting and texting potential participants for the web-based survey, averaging 0.03 person-hours per enrolled participant (15 person-hours per 535 web-based participants) and US $500 in staff wages. Twilio texting costs were US $420, amounting to US $920 in total expenditures for the web-based survey. Comparatively, 3319 hours were spent by interviewers attempting to contact nonresponders by telephone, for an average of 5.11 person-hours per enrolled participant (3319 person-hours per 650 telephone participants) and US $70,000 in interviewer wages.

Principal Findings

While the web-based survey was more time- and cost-efficient than the telephone interview, participant enrollment was low, and there were statistically significant sociodemographic differences between the web-based case and control participants and their respective sample pools. Adding the follow-up telephone interview increased participant enrollment and the representativeness of both the case and control participants to sample pools. Participant responses to exposure and behavior questions and data completeness were similar between the 2 survey modalities.

Enrollment more than doubled for case and control participants after interviewers called individuals who did not respond to the web-based survey to complete the survey by telephone. Case participant enrollment for our mixed-mode study was higher than those for other COVID-19 case-control studies using telephone only (40.6% vs 3%-25% case participant enrollment in other studies), but control participant enrollment was lower (5.9% vs 9%-13% control participant enrollment in other studies) [ 23 - 25 ]. However, control participant enrollment in our sequential mixed-mode study may not be comparable to telephone-only COVID-19 case-control studies for 2 reasons. First, we texted up to 20 potential controls for every enrolled case participant in anticipation of lower response rates for the web-based survey, inflating the number of contacted controls in our response rate calculations. Second, we did not follow up with all potential controls by telephone once our quota of 2 controls per case was reached. In contrast, telephone-only studies only call as many controls as needed to enroll the desired number of matched control participants, which is typically less than 20.

We found sociodemographic differences between participants completing the survey on the web and by telephone. Web-based respondents were more likely to be female, identify as White, non-Hispanic, have higher levels of education, and reside in urban areas, which was consistent with other studies evaluating survey mode effects [ 12 , 26 , 27 ]. Contrary to other studies that found higher web-based response rates among those younger than 35 years of age [ 14 ], participants aged 18-39 years in our case-control study were more likely to respond to the telephone survey, as were participants aged 60 years and older, participants working outside the home, and participants residing in areas with a higher burden of health injustices. Some of these differences may be attributable to the timing of when potential participants were contacted. While potential participants were texted a link to complete the web-based survey only in the morning, telephone interviews were administered throughout the day, including in the late afternoon and evening when more people may be at home and not working. In addition, older participants and participants in lower socioeconomic settings may experience more barriers to completing a web-based survey, such as limited internet access or less comfort using mobile platforms [ 15 ], making them more likely to complete a telephone interview.

While there were sociodemographic differences between web-based and telephone participants and between web-based and telephone case and control participants and their respective sample pools, the sociodemographic characteristics of combined web-based and telephone survey participants were broadly representative of the sample pools. This indicates that the sequential mixed-mode design allowed for the recruitment of more representative case and control participant groups than if we had used a telephone or web-based survey alone, and the use of this survey design can help reduce selection bias in case-control studies.

Telephone surveys conducted by trained interviewers have several advantages over other modes of administration. Most importantly, trained interviewers can answer participants’ questions, add clarifying questions, and probe interviewees for more complete responses, leading to better data completeness and quality. While increasing data quality, telephone surveys can lead to social desirability bias as participants may alter answers to questions to seem more favorable or socially acceptable to an interviewer [ 19 , 20 ]. An advantage of using a web-based survey is that the absence of an interviewer may provide participants with the opportunity to answer questions more candidly, potentially reducing social desirability bias [ 19 , 20 ]. While we found that web-based participants were more likely to report certain community exposures, most of the differential responses between web-based and telephone participants were no longer statistically significant after adjusting for variables shown to be associated with mode effects (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and geographic location). This suggests that demographic differences between web-based and telephone participants may be confounding variables and should be considered when analyzing and interpreting data for case-control studies.

Limitations

This project was subject to several limitations. First, cases were randomly selected from persons reported in Colorado’s COVID-19 surveillance system who had already completed an interview with public health, which may impact study findings. For example, this method of case-participant selection may account for the high enrollment rates we had for our case-control study, and these individuals may systematically differ from those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 who did not complete an initial interview with public health. Second, sample pool data were obtained from the ELR system for control participants, which had incomplete demographic data. The sample pool characteristics presented in this paper may not be accurate because of these missing data and, in turn, affect our evaluations of sample representativeness. Third, the socioeconomic characteristics of participants may be subject to ecological fallacy as we used county-level Colorado EnviroScreen scores as a proxy for individual socioeconomic status. Fourth, it is unclear whether the systematic differences noted between web-based and telephone participants were due to the survey mode itself or due to the additional contact attempts made to enroll telephone participants. Finally, this sequential mixed-mode case-control study was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by various political and social factors that could have influenced who responded to our survey and their responses. As such, findings from this paper may not be generalizable to case-control studies evaluating other diseases or outbreaks.

Conclusions

Telephone interviews conducted as part of an outbreak investigation are time-consuming and costly [ 8 ]. Given the limited resources and staff at many public health agencies, it is critical to find methods to increase efficiency and reduce the costs of outbreak investigations. Web-based surveys are more time- and cost-efficient than telephone interviews, greatly reducing the workload for health departments. However, web-based surveys may appeal to specific demographics, have lower enrollment rates, and may require a larger sample pool or a longer time to enroll participants, which may not be feasible for small outbreaks or ideal for public health emergencies when timely data collection is crucial.

By using a sequential mixed-mode design, we were able to efficiently recruit participants for a case-control study with limited impact on data quality. Moreover, using the sequential mixed-mode approach allowed for maximal sample representativeness compared to a web-based or telephone interview alone. This is critical during public health emergencies, when timely and accurate exposure information is needed to inform control measures and policy. While the sequential mixed-mode design allowed us to reach more potential control participants with fewer resources, we still encountered the same challenges recruiting control participants noted in other studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions to the conception, design, or management of the case-control study: Nisha Alden, Andrea Buchwald, Nicole Comstock, Lauren Gunn-Sandell, Tye Harlow, Breanna Kawasaki, Emma Schmoll, RX Schwartz, Ginger Stringer, and Rachel K Herlihy. This project was supported by a financial assistance award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and awarded to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment contracted with EJSW at the Colorado School of Public Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to Colorado state statutes and regulations, which limit data release based on maintaining confidentiality for potentially identifiable person-level data, but are available from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment upon reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

ADT contributed to the study’s conception, reviewed current research, performed statistical analyses, interpreted results, and was the primary author of the manuscript. AEW, MRT, and EJSW made significant contributions to the study’s conception and interpretation of results and critically revised the manuscript. RHJ and BAA substantively reviewed and revised the manuscript for its content. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Colorado COVID-19 case-control survey questionnaires.

• Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Case-control studies: research in reverse. Lancet. 2002;359(9304):431-434. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mook P, McCormick J, Kanagarajah S, Adak GK, Cleary P, Elson R, et al. Online market research panel members as controls in case-control studies to investigate gastrointestinal disease outbreaks: early experiences and lessons learnt from the UK. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146(4):458-464. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Waldram A, McKerr C, Gobin M, Adak G, Stuart JM, Cleary P. Control selection methods in recent case-control studies conducted as part of infectious disease outbreaks. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(6):465-471. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Aigner A, Grittner U, Becher H. Bias due to differential participation in case-control studies and review of available approaches for adjustment. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191327. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Czajka JL, Beyler A. Declining response rates in federal sureys: trends and implication. Mathematica Policy Research. 2016. URL: https://tinyurl.com/ycyte42a [accessed 2023-02-27]
• McClain C. Most Americans don't answer cellphone calls from unknown numbers. Pew Research Center. 2020. URL: https://tinyurl.com/3her7dc5 [accessed 2023-02-27]
• Yahata Y, Ohshima N, Odaira F, Nakamura N, Ichikawa H, Matsuno K, et al. Web survey-based selection of controls for epidemiological analyses of a multi-prefectural outbreak of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157 in Japan associated with consumption of self-grilled beef hanging tender. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146(4):450-457. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ghosh TS, Patnaik JL, Alden NB, Vogt RL. Internet- versus telephone-based local outbreak investigations. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14(6):975-977. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yasmin S, Pogreba-Brown K, Stewart J, Sunenshine R. Use of an online survey during an outbreak of Clostridium perfringens in a retirement community—Arizona, 2012. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2014;20(2):205-209. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Srikantiah P, Bodager D, Toth B, Kass-Hout T, Hammond R, Stenzel S, et al. Web-based investigation of multistate salmonellosis outbreak. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(4):610-612. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Taylor M, Galanis E. Online population control surveys: a new method for investigating foodborne outbreaks. Epidemiol Infect. 2020;148:e93. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mauz E, Hoffmann R, Houben R, Krause L, Kamtsiuris P, Gößwald A. Mode equivalence of health indicators between data collection modes and mixed-mode survey designs in population-based health interview surveys for children and adolescents: methodological study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(2):132-139. [ CrossRef ]
• Hollier LP, Pettigrew S, Slevin T, Strickland M, Minto C. Comparing online and telephone survey results in the context of a skin cancer prevention campaign evaluation. J Public Health (Oxf). 2017;39(1):193-201. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• de Leeuw ED. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J Off Stat. 2005;21(2):233-255. [ FREE Full text ]
• Braekman E, Drieskens S, Charafeddine R, Demarest S, Berete F, Gisle L, et al. Mixing mixed-mode designs in a national health interview survey: a pilot study to assess the impact on the self-administered questionnaire non-response. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):212. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rivara FP, Koepsell TD, Wang J, Durbin D, Jaffe KM, Vavilala M, et al. Comparison of telephone with world wide web-based responses by parents and teens to a follow-up survey after injury. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(3):964-981. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27(3):281-291. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Greene J, Speizer H, Wiitala W. Telephone and web: mixed-mode challenge. Health Serv Res. 2008;43(1 Pt 1):230-248. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jones MK, Calzavara L, Allman D, Worthington CA, Tyndall M, Iveniuk J. A comparison of web and telephone responses from a national HIV and AIDS survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016;2(2):e37. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• White AE, Tran AD, Torok MR, Jervis RH, Albanese BA, Buchwald AG, et al. Community exposures among Colorado adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2—a case-control study, March-December 2021. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282422. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Andrejko KL, Pry JM, Myers JF, Fukui N, DeGuzman JL, Openshaw J, et al. Effectiveness of face mask or respirator use in indoor public settings for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection—California, February-December 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(6):212-216. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Andrejko KL, Pry J, Myers JF, Jewell NP, Openshaw J, Watt J, et al. Prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by mRNA-based vaccines within the general population of California. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74(8):1382-1389. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fisher KA, Tenforde MW, Feldstein LR, Lindsell CJ, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19 among symptomatic adults ≥18 years in 11 outpatient health care facilities—United States, July 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(36):1258-1264. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Link MW, Mokdad AH. Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys: an experiment with web, mail, and telephone. Epidemiology. 2005;16(5):701-704. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Roster CA, Rogers RD, Albaum G, Klein D. A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. Int J Mark Res. 2018;46(3):359-373. [ CrossRef ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 19.01.24; peer-reviewed by M Couper, J Ziegenfuss; comments to author 13.02.24; revised version received 29.03.24; accepted 04.04.24; published 27.05.24.

©Amanda D Tran, Alice E White, Michelle R Torok, Rachel H Jervis, Bernadette A Albanese, Elaine J Scallan Walter. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 27.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.