analyzing qualitative data case study

Qualitative case study data analysis: an example from practice

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
• PMID: 25976531
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.22.5.8.e1307

Aim: To illustrate an approach to data analysis in qualitative case study methodology.

Background: There is often little detail in case study research about how data were analysed. However, it is important that comprehensive analysis procedures are used because there are often large sets of data from multiple sources of evidence. Furthermore, the ability to describe in detail how the analysis was conducted ensures rigour in reporting qualitative research.

Data sources: The research example used is a multiple case study that explored the role of the clinical skills laboratory in preparing students for the real world of practice. Data analysis was conducted using a framework guided by the four stages of analysis outlined by Morse ( 1994 ): comprehending, synthesising, theorising and recontextualising. The specific strategies for analysis in these stages centred on the work of Miles and Huberman ( 1994 ), which has been successfully used in case study research. The data were managed using NVivo software.

Review methods: Literature examining qualitative data analysis was reviewed and strategies illustrated by the case study example provided. Discussion Each stage of the analysis framework is described with illustration from the research example for the purpose of highlighting the benefits of a systematic approach to handling large data sets from multiple sources.

Conclusion: By providing an example of how each stage of the analysis was conducted, it is hoped that researchers will be able to consider the benefits of such an approach to their own case study analysis.

Implications for research/practice: This paper illustrates specific strategies that can be employed when conducting data analysis in case study research and other qualitative research designs.

Keywords: Case study data analysis; case study research methodology; clinical skills research; qualitative case study methodology; qualitative data analysis; qualitative research.

• Case-Control Studies*
• Data Interpretation, Statistical*
• Nursing Research / methods*
• Qualitative Research*
• Research Design

• AI & NLP
• Churn & Loyalty
• Customer Experience
• Customer Journeys
• Customer Metrics
• Feedback Analysis
• Product Experience
• Product Updates
• Sentiment Analysis
• Surveys & Feedback Collection
• Try Thematic

Welcome to the community

Qualitative Data Analysis: Step-by-Step Guide (Manual vs. Automatic)

When we conduct qualitative methods of research, need to explain changes in metrics or understand people's opinions, we always turn to qualitative data. Qualitative data is typically generated through:

• Interview transcripts
• Surveys with open-ended questions
• Contact center transcripts
• Texts and documents
• Audio and video recordings
• Observational notes

Compared to quantitative data, which captures structured information, qualitative data is unstructured and has more depth. It can answer our questions, can help formulate hypotheses and build understanding.

It's important to understand the differences between quantitative data & qualitative data . But unfortunately, analyzing qualitative data is difficult. While tools like Excel, Tableau and PowerBI crunch and visualize quantitative data with ease, there are a limited number of mainstream tools for analyzing qualitative data . The majority of qualitative data analysis still happens manually.

That said, there are two new trends that are changing this. First, there are advances in natural language processing (NLP) which is focused on understanding human language. Second, there is an explosion of user-friendly software designed for both researchers and businesses. Both help automate the qualitative data analysis process.

In this post we want to teach you how to conduct a successful qualitative data analysis. There are two primary qualitative data analysis methods; manual & automatic. We will teach you how to conduct the analysis manually, and also, automatically using software solutions powered by NLP. We’ll guide you through the steps to conduct a manual analysis, and look at what is involved and the role technology can play in automating this process.

More businesses are switching to fully-automated analysis of qualitative customer data because it is cheaper, faster, and just as accurate. Primarily, businesses purchase subscriptions to feedback analytics platforms so that they can understand customer pain points and sentiment.

We’ll take you through 5 steps to conduct a successful qualitative data analysis. Within each step we will highlight the key difference between the manual, and automated approach of qualitative researchers. Here's an overview of the steps:

The 5 steps to doing qualitative data analysis

• Gathering and collecting your qualitative data
• Organizing and connecting into your qualitative data
• Coding your qualitative data
• Analyzing the qualitative data for insights
• Reporting on the insights derived from your analysis

What is Qualitative Data Analysis?

Qualitative data analysis is a process of gathering, structuring and interpreting qualitative data to understand what it represents.

Qualitative data is non-numerical and unstructured. Qualitative data generally refers to text, such as open-ended responses to survey questions or user interviews, but also includes audio, photos and video.

Businesses often perform qualitative data analysis on customer feedback. And within this context, qualitative data generally refers to verbatim text data collected from sources such as reviews, complaints, chat messages, support centre interactions, customer interviews, case notes or social media comments.

How is qualitative data analysis different from quantitative data analysis?

Understanding the differences between quantitative & qualitative data is important. When it comes to analyzing data, Qualitative Data Analysis serves a very different role to Quantitative Data Analysis. But what sets them apart?

Qualitative Data Analysis dives into the stories hidden in non-numerical data such as interviews, open-ended survey answers, or notes from observations. It uncovers the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ giving a deep understanding of people’s experiences and emotions.

Quantitative Data Analysis on the other hand deals with numerical data, using statistics to measure differences, identify preferred options, and pinpoint root causes of issues.  It steps back to address questions like "how many" or "what percentage" to offer broad insights we can apply to larger groups.

In short, Qualitative Data Analysis is like a microscope,  helping us understand specific detail. Quantitative Data Analysis is like the telescope, giving us a broader perspective. Both are important, working together to decode data for different objectives.

Qualitative Data Analysis methods

Once all the data has been captured, there are a variety of analysis techniques available and the choice is determined by your specific research objectives and the kind of data you’ve gathered.  Common qualitative data analysis methods include:

Content Analysis

This is a popular approach to qualitative data analysis. Other qualitative analysis techniques may fit within the broad scope of content analysis. Thematic analysis is a part of the content analysis.  Content analysis is used to identify the patterns that emerge from text, by grouping content into words, concepts, and themes. Content analysis is useful to quantify the relationship between all of the grouped content. The Columbia School of Public Health has a detailed breakdown of content analysis .

Narrative Analysis

Narrative analysis focuses on the stories people tell and the language they use to make sense of them.  It is particularly useful in qualitative research methods where customer stories are used to get a deep understanding of customers’ perspectives on a specific issue. A narrative analysis might enable us to summarize the outcomes of a focused case study.

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is used to get a thorough understanding of the political, cultural and power dynamics that exist in specific situations.  The focus of discourse analysis here is on the way people express themselves in different social contexts. Discourse analysis is commonly used by brand strategists who hope to understand why a group of people feel the way they do about a brand or product.

Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis is used to deduce the meaning behind the words people use. This is accomplished by discovering repeating themes in text. These meaningful themes reveal key insights into data and can be quantified, particularly when paired with sentiment analysis . Often, the outcome of thematic analysis is a code frame that captures themes in terms of codes, also called categories. So the process of thematic analysis is also referred to as “coding”. A common use-case for thematic analysis in companies is analysis of customer feedback.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a useful approach when little is known about a subject. Grounded theory starts by formulating a theory around a single data case. This means that the theory is “grounded”. Grounded theory analysis is based on actual data, and not entirely speculative. Then additional cases can be examined to see if they are relevant and can add to the original grounded theory.

Challenges of Qualitative Data Analysis

While Qualitative Data Analysis offers rich insights, it comes with its challenges. Each unique QDA method has its unique hurdles. Let’s take a look at the challenges researchers and analysts might face, depending on the chosen method.

• Time and Effort (Narrative Analysis): Narrative analysis, which focuses on personal stories, demands patience. Sifting through lengthy narratives to find meaningful insights can be time-consuming, requires dedicated effort.
• Being Objective (Grounded Theory): Grounded theory, building theories from data, faces the challenges of personal biases. Staying objective while interpreting data is crucial, ensuring conclusions are rooted in the data itself.
• Complexity (Thematic Analysis): Thematic analysis involves identifying themes within data, a process that can be intricate. Categorizing and understanding themes can be complex, especially when each piece of data varies in context and structure. Thematic Analysis software can simplify this process.
• Generalizing Findings (Narrative Analysis): Narrative analysis, dealing with individual stories, makes drawing broad challenging. Extending findings from a single narrative to a broader context requires careful consideration.
• Managing Data (Thematic Analysis): Thematic analysis involves organizing and managing vast amounts of unstructured data, like interview transcripts. Managing this can be a hefty task, requiring effective data management strategies.
• Skill Level (Grounded Theory): Grounded theory demands specific skills to build theories from the ground up. Finding or training analysts with these skills poses a challenge, requiring investment in building expertise.

Benefits of qualitative data analysis

Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) is like a versatile toolkit, offering a tailored approach to understanding your data. The benefits it offers are as diverse as the methods. Let’s explore why choosing the right method matters.

• Tailored Methods for Specific Needs: QDA isn't one-size-fits-all. Depending on your research objectives and the type of data at hand, different methods offer unique benefits. If you want emotive customer stories, narrative analysis paints a strong picture. When you want to explain a score, thematic analysis reveals insightful patterns
• Flexibility with Thematic Analysis: thematic analysis is like a chameleon in the toolkit of QDA. It adapts well to different types of data and research objectives, making it a top choice for any qualitative analysis.
• Deeper Understanding, Better Products: QDA helps you dive into people's thoughts and feelings. This deep understanding helps you build products and services that truly matches what people want, ensuring satisfied customers
• Finding the Unexpected: Qualitative data often reveals surprises that we miss in quantitative data. QDA offers us new ideas and perspectives, for insights we might otherwise miss.
• Building Effective Strategies: Insights from QDA are like strategic guides. They help businesses in crafting plans that match people’s desires.
• Creating Genuine Connections: Understanding people’s experiences lets businesses connect on a real level. This genuine connection helps build trust and loyalty, priceless for any business.

How to do Qualitative Data Analysis: 5 steps

Now we are going to show how you can do your own qualitative data analysis. We will guide you through this process step by step. As mentioned earlier, you will learn how to do qualitative data analysis manually , and also automatically using modern qualitative data and thematic analysis software.

To get best value from the analysis process and research process, it’s important to be super clear about the nature and scope of the question that’s being researched. This will help you select the research collection channels that are most likely to help you answer your question.

Depending on if you are a business looking to understand customer sentiment, or an academic surveying a school, your approach to qualitative data analysis will be unique.

Once you’re clear, there’s a sequence to follow. And, though there are differences in the manual and automatic approaches, the process steps are mostly the same.

The use case for our step-by-step guide is a company looking to collect data (customer feedback data), and analyze the customer feedback - in order to improve customer experience. By analyzing the customer feedback the company derives insights about their business and their customers. You can follow these same steps regardless of the nature of your research. Let’s get started.

Step 1: Gather your qualitative data and conduct research (Conduct qualitative research)

The first step of qualitative research is to do data collection. Put simply, data collection is gathering all of your data for analysis. A common situation is when qualitative data is spread across various sources.

Classic methods of gathering qualitative data

Most companies use traditional methods for gathering qualitative data: conducting interviews with research participants, running surveys, and running focus groups. This data is typically stored in documents, CRMs, databases and knowledge bases. It’s important to examine which data is available and needs to be included in your research project, based on its scope.

Using your existing qualitative feedback

As it becomes easier for customers to engage across a range of different channels, companies are gathering increasingly large amounts of both solicited and unsolicited qualitative feedback.

Most organizations have now invested in Voice of Customer programs , support ticketing systems, chatbot and support conversations, emails and even customer Slack chats.

These new channels provide companies with new ways of getting feedback, and also allow the collection of unstructured feedback data at scale.

The great thing about this data is that it contains a wealth of valubale insights and that it’s already there! When you have a new question about user behavior or your customers, you don’t need to create a new research study or set up a focus group. You can find most answers in the data you already have.

Typically, this data is stored in third-party solutions or a central database, but there are ways to export it or connect to a feedback analysis solution through integrations or an API.

Utilize untapped qualitative data channels

There are many online qualitative data sources you may not have considered. For example, you can find useful qualitative data in social media channels like Twitter or Facebook. Online forums, review sites, and online communities such as Discourse or Reddit also contain valuable data about your customers, or research questions.

If you are considering performing a qualitative benchmark analysis against competitors - the internet is your best friend. Gathering feedback in competitor reviews on sites like Trustpilot, G2, Capterra, Better Business Bureau or on app stores is a great way to perform a competitor benchmark analysis.

Customer feedback analysis software often has integrations into social media and review sites, or you could use a solution like DataMiner to scrape the reviews.

Step 2: Connect & organize all your qualitative data

Now you all have this qualitative data but there’s a problem, the data is unstructured. Before feedback can be analyzed and assigned any value, it needs to be organized in a single place. Why is this important? Consistency!

If all data is easily accessible in one place and analyzed in a consistent manner, you will have an easier time summarizing and making decisions based on this data.

The manual approach to organizing your data

The classic method of structuring qualitative data is to plot all the raw data you’ve gathered into a spreadsheet.

Typically, research and support teams would share large Excel sheets and different business units would make sense of the qualitative feedback data on their own. Each team collects and organizes the data in a way that best suits them, which means the feedback tends to be kept in separate silos.

An alternative and a more robust solution is to store feedback in a central database, like Snowflake or Amazon Redshift .

Keep in mind that when you organize your data in this way, you are often preparing it to be imported into another software. If you go the route of a database, you would need to use an API to push the feedback into a third-party software.

Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS)

Traditionally within the manual analysis approach (but not always), qualitative data is imported into CAQDAS software for coding.

In the early 2000s, CAQDAS software was popularised by developers such as ATLAS.ti, NVivo and MAXQDA and eagerly adopted by researchers to assist with the organizing and coding of data.  

The benefits of using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software:

• Assists in the organizing of your data
• Opens you up to exploring different interpretations of your data analysis
• Allows you to share your dataset easier and allows group collaboration (allows for secondary analysis)

However you still need to code the data, uncover the themes and do the analysis yourself. Therefore it is still a manual approach.

Organizing your qualitative data in a feedback repository

Another solution to organizing your qualitative data is to upload it into a feedback repository where it can be unified with your other data , and easily searchable and taggable. There are a number of software solutions that act as a central repository for your qualitative research data. Here are a couple solutions that you could investigate:  

• Dovetail: Dovetail is a research repository with a focus on video and audio transcriptions. You can tag your transcriptions within the platform for theme analysis. You can also upload your other qualitative data such as research reports, survey responses, support conversations, and customer interviews. Dovetail acts as a single, searchable repository. And makes it easier to collaborate with other people around your qualitative research.
• EnjoyHQ: EnjoyHQ is another research repository with similar functionality to Dovetail. It boasts a more sophisticated search engine, but it has a higher starting subscription cost.

Organizing your qualitative data in a feedback analytics platform

If you have a lot of qualitative customer or employee feedback, from the likes of customer surveys or employee surveys, you will benefit from a feedback analytics platform. A feedback analytics platform is a software that automates the process of both sentiment analysis and thematic analysis . Companies use the integrations offered by these platforms to directly tap into their qualitative data sources (review sites, social media, survey responses, etc.). The data collected is then organized and analyzed consistently within the platform.

If you have data prepared in a spreadsheet, it can also be imported into feedback analytics platforms.

Once all this rich data has been organized within the feedback analytics platform, it is ready to be coded and themed, within the same platform. Thematic is a feedback analytics platform that offers one of the largest libraries of integrations with qualitative data sources.

Step 3: Coding your qualitative data

Your feedback data is now organized in one place. Either within your spreadsheet, CAQDAS, feedback repository or within your feedback analytics platform. The next step is to code your feedback data so we can extract meaningful insights in the next step.

Coding is the process of labelling and organizing your data in such a way that you can then identify themes in the data, and the relationships between these themes.

To simplify the coding process, you will take small samples of your customer feedback data, come up with a set of codes, or categories capturing themes, and label each piece of feedback, systematically, for patterns and meaning. Then you will take a larger sample of data, revising and refining the codes for greater accuracy and consistency as you go.

If you choose to use a feedback analytics platform, much of this process will be automated and accomplished for you.

The terms to describe different categories of meaning (‘theme’, ‘code’, ‘tag’, ‘category’ etc) can be confusing as they are often used interchangeably.  For clarity, this article will use the term ‘code’.

To code means to identify key words or phrases and assign them to a category of meaning. “I really hate the customer service of this computer software company” would be coded as “poor customer service”.

How to manually code your qualitative data

• Decide whether you will use deductive or inductive coding. Deductive coding is when you create a list of predefined codes, and then assign them to the qualitative data. Inductive coding is the opposite of this, you create codes based on the data itself. Codes arise directly from the data and you label them as you go. You need to weigh up the pros and cons of each coding method and select the most appropriate.
• Read through the feedback data to get a broad sense of what it reveals. Now it’s time to start assigning your first set of codes to statements and sections of text.
• Keep repeating step 2, adding new codes and revising the code description as often as necessary.  Once it has all been coded, go through everything again, to be sure there are no inconsistencies and that nothing has been overlooked.
• Create a code frame to group your codes. The coding frame is the organizational structure of all your codes. And there are two commonly used types of coding frames, flat, or hierarchical. A hierarchical code frame will make it easier for you to derive insights from your analysis.
• Based on the number of times a particular code occurs, you can now see the common themes in your feedback data. This is insightful! If ‘bad customer service’ is a common code, it’s time to take action.

We have a detailed guide dedicated to manually coding your qualitative data .

Using software to speed up manual coding of qualitative data

An Excel spreadsheet is still a popular method for coding. But various software solutions can help speed up this process. Here are some examples.

• CAQDAS / NVivo - CAQDAS software has built-in functionality that allows you to code text within their software. You may find the interface the software offers easier for managing codes than a spreadsheet.
• Dovetail/EnjoyHQ - You can tag transcripts and other textual data within these solutions. As they are also repositories you may find it simpler to keep the coding in one platform.
• IBM SPSS - SPSS is a statistical analysis software that may make coding easier than in a spreadsheet.
• Ascribe - Ascribe’s ‘Coder’ is a coding management system. Its user interface will make it easier for you to manage your codes.

Automating the qualitative coding process using thematic analysis software

In solutions which speed up the manual coding process, you still have to come up with valid codes and often apply codes manually to pieces of feedback. But there are also solutions that automate both the discovery and the application of codes.

Advances in machine learning have now made it possible to read, code and structure qualitative data automatically. This type of automated coding is offered by thematic analysis software .

Automation makes it far simpler and faster to code the feedback and group it into themes. By incorporating natural language processing (NLP) into the software, the AI looks across sentences and phrases to identify common themes meaningful statements. Some automated solutions detect repeating patterns and assign codes to them, others make you train the AI by providing examples. You could say that the AI learns the meaning of the feedback on its own.

Thematic automates the coding of qualitative feedback regardless of source. There’s no need to set up themes or categories in advance. Simply upload your data and wait a few minutes. You can also manually edit the codes to further refine their accuracy.  Experiments conducted indicate that Thematic’s automated coding is just as accurate as manual coding .

Paired with sentiment analysis and advanced text analytics - these automated solutions become powerful for deriving quality business or research insights.

You could also build your own , if you have the resources!

The key benefits of using an automated coding solution

Automated analysis can often be set up fast and there’s the potential to uncover things that would never have been revealed if you had given the software a prescribed list of themes to look for.

Because the model applies a consistent rule to the data, it captures phrases or statements that a human eye might have missed.

Complete and consistent analysis of customer feedback enables more meaningful findings. Leading us into step 4.

Step 4: Analyze your data: Find meaningful insights

Now we are going to analyze our data to find insights. This is where we start to answer our research questions. Keep in mind that step 4 and step 5 (tell the story) have some overlap . This is because creating visualizations is both part of analysis process and reporting.

The task of uncovering insights is to scour through the codes that emerge from the data and draw meaningful correlations from them. It is also about making sure each insight is distinct and has enough data to support it.

Part of the analysis is to establish how much each code relates to different demographics and customer profiles, and identify whether there’s any relationship between these data points.

Manually create sub-codes to improve the quality of insights

If your code frame only has one level, you may find that your codes are too broad to be able to extract meaningful insights. This is where it is valuable to create sub-codes to your primary codes. This process is sometimes referred to as meta coding.

Note: If you take an inductive coding approach, you can create sub-codes as you are reading through your feedback data and coding it.

While time-consuming, this exercise will improve the quality of your analysis. Here is an example of what sub-codes could look like.

You need to carefully read your qualitative data to create quality sub-codes. But as you can see, the depth of analysis is greatly improved. By calculating the frequency of these sub-codes you can get insight into which  customer service problems you can immediately address.

Correlate the frequency of codes to customer segments

Many businesses use customer segmentation . And you may have your own respondent segments that you can apply to your qualitative analysis. Segmentation is the practise of dividing customers or research respondents into subgroups.

Segments can be based on:

• Demographic
• And any other data type that you care to segment by

It is particularly useful to see the occurrence of codes within your segments. If one of your customer segments is considered unimportant to your business, but they are the cause of nearly all customer service complaints, it may be in your best interest to focus attention elsewhere. This is a useful insight!

Manually visualizing coded qualitative data

There are formulas you can use to visualize key insights in your data. The formulas we will suggest are imperative if you are measuring a score alongside your feedback.

If you are collecting a metric alongside your qualitative data this is a key visualization. Impact answers the question: “What’s the impact of a code on my overall score?”. Using Net Promoter Score (NPS) as an example, first you need to:

• Calculate overall NPS
• Calculate NPS in the subset of responses that do not contain that theme
• Subtract B from A

Then you can use this simple formula to calculate code impact on NPS .

You can then visualize this data using a bar chart.

You can download our CX toolkit - it includes a template to recreate this.

Trends over time

This analysis can help you answer questions like: “Which codes are linked to decreases or increases in my score over time?”

We need to compare two sequences of numbers: NPS over time and code frequency over time . Using Excel, calculate the correlation between the two sequences, which can be either positive (the more codes the higher the NPS, see picture below), or negative (the more codes the lower the NPS).

Now you need to plot code frequency against the absolute value of code correlation with NPS. Here is the formula:

The visualization could look like this:

These are two examples, but there are more. For a third manual formula, and to learn why word clouds are not an insightful form of analysis, read our visualizations article .

Using a text analytics solution to automate analysis

Automated text analytics solutions enable codes and sub-codes to be pulled out of the data automatically. This makes it far faster and easier to identify what’s driving negative or positive results. And to pick up emerging trends and find all manner of rich insights in the data.

Another benefit of AI-driven text analytics software is its built-in capability for sentiment analysis, which provides the emotive context behind your feedback and other qualitative textual data therein.

Thematic provides text analytics that goes further by allowing users to apply their expertise on business context to edit or augment the AI-generated outputs.

Since the move away from manual research is generally about reducing the human element, adding human input to the technology might sound counter-intuitive. However, this is mostly to make sure important business nuances in the feedback aren’t missed during coding. The result is a higher accuracy of analysis. This is sometimes referred to as augmented intelligence .

Step 5: Report on your data: Tell the story

The last step of analyzing your qualitative data is to report on it, to tell the story. At this point, the codes are fully developed and the focus is on communicating the narrative to the audience.

A coherent outline of the qualitative research, the findings and the insights is vital for stakeholders to discuss and debate before they can devise a meaningful course of action.

Creating graphs and reporting in Powerpoint

Typically, qualitative researchers take the tried and tested approach of distilling their report into a series of charts, tables and other visuals which are woven into a narrative for presentation in Powerpoint.

Using visualization software for reporting

With data transformation and APIs, the analyzed data can be shared with data visualisation software, such as Power BI or Tableau , Google Studio or Looker. Power BI and Tableau are among the most preferred options.

Visualizing your insights inside a feedback analytics platform

Feedback analytics platforms, like Thematic, incorporate visualisation tools that intuitively turn key data and insights into graphs.  This removes the time consuming work of constructing charts to visually identify patterns and creates more time to focus on building a compelling narrative that highlights the insights, in bite-size chunks, for executive teams to review.

Using a feedback analytics platform with visualization tools means you don’t have to use a separate product for visualizations. You can export graphs into Powerpoints straight from the platforms.

Conclusion - Manual or Automated?

There are those who remain deeply invested in the manual approach - because it’s familiar, because they’re reluctant to spend money and time learning new software, or because they’ve been burned by the overpromises of AI.  

For projects that involve small datasets, manual analysis makes sense. For example, if the objective is simply to quantify a simple question like “Do customers prefer X concepts to Y?”. If the findings are being extracted from a small set of focus groups and interviews, sometimes it’s easier to just read them

However, as new generations come into the workplace, it’s technology-driven solutions that feel more comfortable and practical. And the merits are undeniable.  Especially if the objective is to go deeper and understand the ‘why’ behind customers’ preference for X or Y. And even more especially if time and money are considerations.

The ability to collect a free flow of qualitative feedback data at the same time as the metric means AI can cost-effectively scan, crunch, score and analyze a ton of feedback from one system in one go. And time-intensive processes like focus groups, or coding, that used to take weeks, can now be completed in a matter of hours or days.

But aside from the ever-present business case to speed things up and keep costs down, there are also powerful research imperatives for automated analysis of qualitative data: namely, accuracy and consistency.

Finding insights hidden in feedback requires consistency, especially in coding.  Not to mention catching all the ‘unknown unknowns’ that can skew research findings and steering clear of cognitive bias.

Some say without manual data analysis researchers won’t get an accurate “feel” for the insights. However, the larger data sets are, the harder it is to sort through the feedback and organize feedback that has been pulled from different places.  And, the more difficult it is to stay on course, the greater the risk of drawing incorrect, or incomplete, conclusions grows.

Though the process steps for qualitative data analysis have remained pretty much unchanged since psychologist Paul Felix Lazarsfeld paved the path a hundred years ago, the impact digital technology has had on types of qualitative feedback data and the approach to the analysis are profound.  

If you want to try an automated feedback analysis solution on your own qualitative data, you can get started with Thematic .

Community & Marketing

Tyler manages our community of CX, insights & analytics professionals. Tyler's goal is to help unite insights professionals around common challenges.

We make it easy to discover the customer and product issues that matter.

Unlock the value of feedback at scale, in one platform. Try it for free now!

• Questions to ask your Feedback Analytics vendor
• How to end customer churn for good
• Scalable analysis of NPS verbatims
• 5 Text analytics approaches
• How to calculate the ROI of CX

Our experts will show you how Thematic works, how to discover pain points and track the ROI of decisions. To access your free trial, book a personal demo today.

Recent posts

Watercare is New Zealand's largest water and wastewater service provider. They are responsible for bringing clean water to 1.7 million people in Tamaki Makaurau (Auckland) and safeguarding the wastewater network to minimize impact on the environment. Water is a sector that often gets taken for granted, with drainage and

Become a qualitative theming pro! Creating a perfect code frame is hard, but thematic analysis software makes the process much easier.

Qualtrics is one of the most well-known and powerful Customer Feedback Management platforms. But even so, it has limitations. We recently hosted a live panel where data analysts from two well-known brands shared their experiences with Qualtrics, and how they extended this platform’s capabilities. Below, we’ll share the

Qualitative Data Analysis Methods 101:

The “big 6” methods + examples.

By: Kerryn Warren (PhD) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (D.Tech) | May 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Qualitative data analysis methods. Wow, that’s a mouthful. 

If you’re new to the world of research, qualitative data analysis can look rather intimidating. So much bulky terminology and so many abstract, fluffy concepts. It certainly can be a minefield!

Don’t worry – in this post, we’ll unpack the most popular analysis methods , one at a time, so that you can approach your analysis with confidence and competence – whether that’s for a dissertation, thesis or really any kind of research project.

What (exactly) is qualitative data analysis?

To understand qualitative data analysis, we need to first understand qualitative data – so let’s step back and ask the question, “what exactly is qualitative data?”.

Qualitative data refers to pretty much any data that’s “not numbers” . In other words, it’s not the stuff you measure using a fixed scale or complex equipment, nor do you analyse it using complex statistics or mathematics.

So, if it’s not numbers, what is it?

Words, you guessed? Well… sometimes , yes. Qualitative data can, and often does, take the form of interview transcripts, documents and open-ended survey responses – but it can also involve the interpretation of images and videos. In other words, qualitative isn’t just limited to text-based data.

So, how’s that different from quantitative data, you ask?

Simply put, qualitative research focuses on words, descriptions, concepts or ideas – while quantitative research focuses on numbers and statistics . Qualitative research investigates the “softer side” of things to explore and describe , while quantitative research focuses on the “hard numbers”, to measure differences between variables and the relationships between them. If you’re keen to learn more about the differences between qual and quant, we’ve got a detailed post over here .

So, qualitative analysis is easier than quantitative, right?

Not quite. In many ways, qualitative data can be challenging and time-consuming to analyse and interpret. At the end of your data collection phase (which itself takes a lot of time), you’ll likely have many pages of text-based data or hours upon hours of audio to work through. You might also have subtle nuances of interactions or discussions that have danced around in your mind, or that you scribbled down in messy field notes. All of this needs to work its way into your analysis.

Making sense of all of this is no small task and you shouldn’t underestimate it. Long story short – qualitative analysis can be a lot of work! Of course, quantitative analysis is no piece of cake either, but it’s important to recognise that qualitative analysis still requires a significant investment in terms of time and effort.

Need a helping hand?

In this post, we’ll explore qualitative data analysis by looking at some of the most common analysis methods we encounter. We’re not going to cover every possible qualitative method and we’re not going to go into heavy detail – we’re just going to give you the big picture. That said, we will of course includes links to loads of extra resources so that you can learn more about whichever analysis method interests you.

Without further delay, let’s get into it.

The “Big 6” Qualitative Analysis Methods 

There are many different types of qualitative data analysis, all of which serve different purposes and have unique strengths and weaknesses . We’ll start by outlining the analysis methods and then we’ll dive into the details for each.

The 6 most popular methods (or at least the ones we see at Grad Coach) are:

• Content analysis
• Narrative analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Thematic analysis
• Grounded theory (GT)
• Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA)

Let’s take a look at each of them…

QDA Method #1: Qualitative Content Analysis

Content analysis is possibly the most common and straightforward QDA method. At the simplest level, content analysis is used to evaluate patterns within a piece of content (for example, words, phrases or images) or across multiple pieces of content or sources of communication. For example, a collection of newspaper articles or political speeches.

With content analysis, you could, for instance, identify the frequency with which an idea is shared or spoken about – like the number of times a Kardashian is mentioned on Twitter. Or you could identify patterns of deeper underlying interpretations – for instance, by identifying phrases or words in tourist pamphlets that highlight India as an ancient country.

Because content analysis can be used in such a wide variety of ways, it’s important to go into your analysis with a very specific question and goal, or you’ll get lost in the fog. With content analysis, you’ll group large amounts of text into codes , summarise these into categories, and possibly even tabulate the data to calculate the frequency of certain concepts or variables. Because of this, content analysis provides a small splash of quantitative thinking within a qualitative method.

Naturally, while content analysis is widely useful, it’s not without its drawbacks . One of the main issues with content analysis is that it can be very time-consuming , as it requires lots of reading and re-reading of the texts. Also, because of its multidimensional focus on both qualitative and quantitative aspects, it is sometimes accused of losing important nuances in communication.

Content analysis also tends to concentrate on a very specific timeline and doesn’t take into account what happened before or after that timeline. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing though – just something to be aware of. So, keep these factors in mind if you’re considering content analysis. Every analysis method has its limitations , so don’t be put off by these – just be aware of them ! If you’re interested in learning more about content analysis, the video below provides a good starting point.

QDA Method #2: Narrative Analysis 

As the name suggests, narrative analysis is all about listening to people telling stories and analysing what that means . Since stories serve a functional purpose of helping us make sense of the world, we can gain insights into the ways that people deal with and make sense of reality by analysing their stories and the ways they’re told.

You could, for example, use narrative analysis to explore whether how something is being said is important. For instance, the narrative of a prisoner trying to justify their crime could provide insight into their view of the world and the justice system. Similarly, analysing the ways entrepreneurs talk about the struggles in their careers or cancer patients telling stories of hope could provide powerful insights into their mindsets and perspectives . Simply put, narrative analysis is about paying attention to the stories that people tell – and more importantly, the way they tell them.

Of course, the narrative approach has its weaknesses , too. Sample sizes are generally quite small due to the time-consuming process of capturing narratives. Because of this, along with the multitude of social and lifestyle factors which can influence a subject, narrative analysis can be quite difficult to reproduce in subsequent research. This means that it’s difficult to test the findings of some of this research.

Similarly, researcher bias can have a strong influence on the results here, so you need to be particularly careful about the potential biases you can bring into your analysis when using this method. Nevertheless, narrative analysis is still a very useful qualitative analysis method – just keep these limitations in mind and be careful not to draw broad conclusions . If you’re keen to learn more about narrative analysis, the video below provides a great introduction to this qualitative analysis method.

QDA Method #3: Discourse Analysis 

Discourse is simply a fancy word for written or spoken language or debate . So, discourse analysis is all about analysing language within its social context. In other words, analysing language – such as a conversation, a speech, etc – within the culture and society it takes place. For example, you could analyse how a janitor speaks to a CEO, or how politicians speak about terrorism.

To truly understand these conversations or speeches, the culture and history of those involved in the communication are important factors to consider. For example, a janitor might speak more casually with a CEO in a company that emphasises equality among workers. Similarly, a politician might speak more about terrorism if there was a recent terrorist incident in the country.

So, as you can see, by using discourse analysis, you can identify how culture , history or power dynamics (to name a few) have an effect on the way concepts are spoken about. So, if your research aims and objectives involve understanding culture or power dynamics, discourse analysis can be a powerful method.

Because there are many social influences in terms of how we speak to each other, the potential use of discourse analysis is vast . Of course, this also means it’s important to have a very specific research question (or questions) in mind when analysing your data and looking for patterns and themes, or you might land up going down a winding rabbit hole.

Discourse analysis can also be very time-consuming  as you need to sample the data to the point of saturation – in other words, until no new information and insights emerge. But this is, of course, part of what makes discourse analysis such a powerful technique. So, keep these factors in mind when considering this QDA method. Again, if you’re keen to learn more, the video below presents a good starting point.

QDA Method #4: Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis looks at patterns of meaning in a data set – for example, a set of interviews or focus group transcripts. But what exactly does that… mean? Well, a thematic analysis takes bodies of data (which are often quite large) and groups them according to similarities – in other words, themes . These themes help us make sense of the content and derive meaning from it.

Let’s take a look at an example.

With thematic analysis, you could analyse 100 online reviews of a popular sushi restaurant to find out what patrons think about the place. By reviewing the data, you would then identify the themes that crop up repeatedly within the data – for example, “fresh ingredients” or “friendly wait staff”.

So, as you can see, thematic analysis can be pretty useful for finding out about people’s experiences , views, and opinions . Therefore, if your research aims and objectives involve understanding people’s experience or view of something, thematic analysis can be a great choice.

Since thematic analysis is a bit of an exploratory process, it’s not unusual for your research questions to develop , or even change as you progress through the analysis. While this is somewhat natural in exploratory research, it can also be seen as a disadvantage as it means that data needs to be re-reviewed each time a research question is adjusted. In other words, thematic analysis can be quite time-consuming – but for a good reason. So, keep this in mind if you choose to use thematic analysis for your project and budget extra time for unexpected adjustments.

QDA Method #5: Grounded theory (GT) 

Grounded theory is a powerful qualitative analysis method where the intention is to create a new theory (or theories) using the data at hand, through a series of “ tests ” and “ revisions ”. Strictly speaking, GT is more a research design type than an analysis method, but we’ve included it here as it’s often referred to as a method.

What’s most important with grounded theory is that you go into the analysis with an open mind and let the data speak for itself – rather than dragging existing hypotheses or theories into your analysis. In other words, your analysis must develop from the ground up (hence the name). 

Let’s look at an example of GT in action.

Assume you’re interested in developing a theory about what factors influence students to watch a YouTube video about qualitative analysis. Using Grounded theory , you’d start with this general overarching question about the given population (i.e., graduate students). First, you’d approach a small sample – for example, five graduate students in a department at a university. Ideally, this sample would be reasonably representative of the broader population. You’d interview these students to identify what factors lead them to watch the video.

After analysing the interview data, a general pattern could emerge. For example, you might notice that graduate students are more likely to read a post about qualitative methods if they are just starting on their dissertation journey, or if they have an upcoming test about research methods.

From here, you’ll look for another small sample – for example, five more graduate students in a different department – and see whether this pattern holds true for them. If not, you’ll look for commonalities and adapt your theory accordingly. As this process continues, the theory would develop . As we mentioned earlier, what’s important with grounded theory is that the theory develops from the data – not from some preconceived idea.

So, what are the drawbacks of grounded theory? Well, some argue that there’s a tricky circularity to grounded theory. For it to work, in principle, you should know as little as possible regarding the research question and population, so that you reduce the bias in your interpretation. However, in many circumstances, it’s also thought to be unwise to approach a research question without knowledge of the current literature . In other words, it’s a bit of a “chicken or the egg” situation.

Regardless, grounded theory remains a popular (and powerful) option. Naturally, it’s a very useful method when you’re researching a topic that is completely new or has very little existing research about it, as it allows you to start from scratch and work your way from the ground up .

QDA Method #6:   Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Interpretive. Phenomenological. Analysis. IPA . Try saying that three times fast…

Let’s just stick with IPA, okay?

IPA is designed to help you understand the personal experiences of a subject (for example, a person or group of people) concerning a major life event, an experience or a situation . This event or experience is the “phenomenon” that makes up the “P” in IPA. Such phenomena may range from relatively common events – such as motherhood, or being involved in a car accident – to those which are extremely rare – for example, someone’s personal experience in a refugee camp. So, IPA is a great choice if your research involves analysing people’s personal experiences of something that happened to them.

It’s important to remember that IPA is subject – centred . In other words, it’s focused on the experiencer . This means that, while you’ll likely use a coding system to identify commonalities, it’s important not to lose the depth of experience or meaning by trying to reduce everything to codes. Also, keep in mind that since your sample size will generally be very small with IPA, you often won’t be able to draw broad conclusions about the generalisability of your findings. But that’s okay as long as it aligns with your research aims and objectives.

Another thing to be aware of with IPA is personal bias . While researcher bias can creep into all forms of research, self-awareness is critically important with IPA, as it can have a major impact on the results. For example, a researcher who was a victim of a crime himself could insert his own feelings of frustration and anger into the way he interprets the experience of someone who was kidnapped. So, if you’re going to undertake IPA, you need to be very self-aware or you could muddy the analysis.

How to choose the right analysis method

In light of all of the qualitative analysis methods we’ve covered so far, you’re probably asking yourself the question, “ How do I choose the right one? ”

Much like all the other methodological decisions you’ll need to make, selecting the right qualitative analysis method largely depends on your research aims, objectives and questions . In other words, the best tool for the job depends on what you’re trying to build. For example:

• Perhaps your research aims to analyse the use of words and what they reveal about the intention of the storyteller and the cultural context of the time.
• Perhaps your research aims to develop an understanding of the unique personal experiences of people that have experienced a certain event, or
• Perhaps your research aims to develop insight regarding the influence of a certain culture on its members.

As you can probably see, each of these research aims are distinctly different , and therefore different analysis methods would be suitable for each one. For example, narrative analysis would likely be a good option for the first aim, while grounded theory wouldn’t be as relevant. 

It’s also important to remember that each method has its own set of strengths, weaknesses and general limitations. No single analysis method is perfect . So, depending on the nature of your research, it may make sense to adopt more than one method (this is called triangulation ). Keep in mind though that this will of course be quite time-consuming.

As we’ve seen, all of the qualitative analysis methods we’ve discussed make use of coding and theme-generating techniques, but the intent and approach of each analysis method differ quite substantially. So, it’s very important to come into your research with a clear intention before you decide which analysis method (or methods) to use.

Start by reviewing your research aims , objectives and research questions to assess what exactly you’re trying to find out – then select a qualitative analysis method that fits. Never pick a method just because you like it or have experience using it – your analysis method (or methods) must align with your broader research aims and objectives.

Let’s recap on QDA methods…

In this post, we looked at six popular qualitative data analysis methods:

• First, we looked at content analysis , a straightforward method that blends a little bit of quant into a primarily qualitative analysis.
• Then we looked at narrative analysis , which is about analysing how stories are told.
• Next up was discourse analysis – which is about analysing conversations and interactions.
• Then we moved on to thematic analysis – which is about identifying themes and patterns.
• From there, we went south with grounded theory – which is about starting from scratch with a specific question and using the data alone to build a theory in response to that question.
• And finally, we looked at IPA – which is about understanding people’s unique experiences of a phenomenon.

Of course, these aren’t the only options when it comes to qualitative data analysis, but they’re a great starting point if you’re dipping your toes into qualitative research for the first time.

If you’re still feeling a bit confused, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process to help you develop your best work.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

84 Comments

This has been very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you madam,

Thank you so much for this information

I wonder it so clear for understand and good for me. can I ask additional query?

Very insightful and useful

Good work done with clear explanations. Thank you.

Thanks so much for the write-up, it’s really good.

Thanks madam . It is very important .

thank you very good

This has been very well explained in simple language . It is useful even for a new researcher.

Great to hear that. Good luck with your qualitative data analysis, Pramod!

This is very useful information. And it was very a clear language structured presentation. Thanks a lot.

Thank you so much.

very informative sequential presentation

Precise explanation of method.

Hi, may we use 2 data analysis methods in our qualitative research?

Thanks for your comment. Most commonly, one would use one type of analysis method, but it depends on your research aims and objectives.

You explained it in very simple language, everyone can understand it. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much, this is very helpful. It has been explained in a very simple manner that even a layman understands

Thank nicely explained can I ask is Qualitative content analysis the same as thematic analysis?

Thanks for your comment. No, QCA and thematic are two different types of analysis. This article might help clarify – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nhs.12048

This is my first time to come across a well explained data analysis. so helpful.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your explanation of the six qualitative analysis methods. This is very helpful. Thank you!

Thank you very much, this is well explained and useful

i need a citation of your book.

Thanks a lot , remarkable indeed, enlighting to the best

Hi Derek, What other theories/methods would you recommend when the data is a whole speech?

Keep writing useful artikel.

It is important concept about QDA and also the way to express is easily understandable, so thanks for all.

Thank you, this is well explained and very useful.

Very helpful .Thanks.

Hi there! Very well explained. Simple but very useful style of writing. Please provide the citation of the text. warm regards

The session was very helpful and insightful. Thank you

This was very helpful and insightful. Easy to read and understand

As a professional academic writer, this has been so informative and educative. Keep up the good work Grad Coach you are unmatched with quality content for sure.

Keep up the good work Grad Coach you are unmatched with quality content for sure.

Its Great and help me the most. A Million Thanks you Dr.

It is a very nice work

Very insightful. Please, which of this approach could be used for a research that one is trying to elicit students’ misconceptions in a particular concept ?

This is Amazing and well explained, thanks

great overview

What do we call a research data analysis method that one use to advise or determining the best accounting tool or techniques that should be adopted in a company.

Informative video, explained in a clear and simple way. Kudos

Waoo! I have chosen method wrong for my data analysis. But I can revise my work according to this guide. Thank you so much for this helpful lecture.

This has been very helpful. It gave me a good view of my research objectives and how to choose the best method. Thematic analysis it is.

Very helpful indeed. Thanku so much for the insight.

This was incredibly helpful.

Very helpful.

very educative

Nicely written especially for novice academic researchers like me! Thank you.

choosing a right method for a paper is always a hard job for a student, this is a useful information, but it would be more useful personally for me, if the author provide me with a little bit more information about the data analysis techniques in type of explanatory research. Can we use qualitative content analysis technique for explanatory research ? or what is the suitable data analysis method for explanatory research in social studies?

that was very helpful for me. because these details are so important to my research. thank you very much

I learnt a lot. Thank you

Relevant and Informative, thanks !

Well-planned and organized, thanks much! 🙂

I have reviewed qualitative data analysis in a simplest way possible. The content will highly be useful for developing my book on qualitative data analysis methods. Cheers!

Clear explanation on qualitative and how about Case study

This was helpful. Thank you

This was really of great assistance, it was just the right information needed. Explanation very clear and follow.

Wow, Thanks for making my life easy

This was helpful thanks .

Very helpful…. clear and written in an easily understandable manner. Thank you.

This was so helpful as it was easy to understand. I’m a new to research thank you so much.

so educative…. but Ijust want to know which method is coding of the qualitative or tallying done?

Thank you for the great content, I have learnt a lot. So helpful

precise and clear presentation with simple language and thank you for that.

very informative content, thank you.

You guys are amazing on YouTube on this platform. Your teachings are great, educative, and informative. kudos!

Brilliant Delivery. You made a complex subject seem so easy. Well done.

Beautifully explained.

Thanks a lot

Is there a video the captures the practical process of coding using automated applications?

Thanks for the comment. We don’t recommend using automated applications for coding, as they are not sufficiently accurate in our experience.

content analysis can be qualitative research?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Thank you very much for such a wonderful content

do you have any material on Data collection

What a powerful explanation of the QDA methods. Thank you.

Great explanation both written and Video. i have been using of it on a day to day working of my thesis project in accounting and finance. Thank you very much for your support.

very helpful, thank you so much

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

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

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples by Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Austen Rainer, Björn Regnell

Get full access to Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1 introduction.

Once data has been collected the focus shifts to analysis of data. It can be said that in this phase, data is used to understand what actually has happened in the studied case, and where the researcher understands the details of the case and seeks patterns in the data. This means that there inevitably is some analysis going on also in the data collection phase where the data is studied, and for example when data from an interview is transcribed. The understandings in the earlier phases are of course also valid and important, but this chapter is more focusing on the separate phase that starts after the data has been collected.

Data analysis is conducted differently for quantitative and qualitative data. Sections 5.2 – 5.5 describe how to analyze qualitative data and how to assess the validity of this type of analysis. In Section 5.6 , a short introduction to quantitative analysis methods is given. Since quantitative analysis is covered extensively in textbooks on statistical analysis, and case study research to a large extent relies on qualitative data, this section is kept short.

5.2 ANALYSIS OF DATA IN FLEXIBLE RESEARCH

5.2.1 introduction.

As case study research is a flexible research method, qualitative data analysis methods are commonly used [176]. The basic objective of the analysis is, as in any other analysis, to derive conclusions from the data, keeping a clear chain of evidence. The chain of evidence means that a reader ...

Get Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

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 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
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

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

What are the different types of case studies?

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

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

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

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

How to write a Case Study?

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

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Next: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 11:40 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

• Cancer Nursing Practice
• Emergency Nurse
• Evidence-Based Nursing
• Learning Disability Practice
• Mental Health Practice
• Nurse Researcher
• Nursing Children and Young People
• Nursing Management
• Nursing Older People
• Nursing Standard
• Primary Health Care
• RCN Nursing Awards
• Nursing Live
• Nursing Careers and Job Fairs
• CPD webinars on-demand
• --> Advanced -->

• Clinical articles
• Expert advice
• Career advice
• Revalidation

Data analysis Previous     Next

Qualitative case study data analysis: an example from practice, catherine houghton lecturer, school of nursing and midwifery, national university of ireland, galway, republic of ireland, kathy murphy professor of nursing, national university of ireland, galway, ireland, david shaw lecturer, open university, milton keynes, uk, dympna casey senior lecturer, national university of ireland, galway, ireland.

Aim To illustrate an approach to data analysis in qualitative case study methodology.

Background There is often little detail in case study research about how data were analysed. However, it is important that comprehensive analysis procedures are used because there are often large sets of data from multiple sources of evidence. Furthermore, the ability to describe in detail how the analysis was conducted ensures rigour in reporting qualitative research.

Data sources The research example used is a multiple case study that explored the role of the clinical skills laboratory in preparing students for the real world of practice. Data analysis was conducted using a framework guided by the four stages of analysis outlined by Morse ( 1994 ): comprehending, synthesising, theorising and recontextualising. The specific strategies for analysis in these stages centred on the work of Miles and Huberman ( 1994 ), which has been successfully used in case study research. The data were managed using NVivo software.

Review methods Literature examining qualitative data analysis was reviewed and strategies illustrated by the case study example provided.

Discussion Each stage of the analysis framework is described with illustration from the research example for the purpose of highlighting the benefits of a systematic approach to handling large data sets from multiple sources.

Conclusion By providing an example of how each stage of the analysis was conducted, it is hoped that researchers will be able to consider the benefits of such an approach to their own case study analysis.

Implications for research/practice This paper illustrates specific strategies that can be employed when conducting data analysis in case study research and other qualitative research designs.

Nurse Researcher . 22, 5, 8-12. doi: 10.7748/nr.22.5.8.e1307

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

None declared

Received: 02 February 2014

Accepted: 16 April 2014

Case study data analysis - case study research methodology - clinical skills research - qualitative case study methodology - qualitative data analysis - qualitative research

User not found

Want to read more?

Already have access log in, 3-month trial offer for £5.25/month.

• Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
• RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
• NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
• Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
• A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you. Find out more

15 May 2015 / Vol 22 issue 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIGITAL EDITION

• LATEST ISSUE
• SIGN UP FOR E-ALERT
• WRITE FOR US
• PERMISSIONS

Share article: Qualitative case study data analysis: an example from practice

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience.

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

Agricultural Policy Analysis pp 179–193 Cite as

Qualitative Methods for Policy Analysis: Case Study Research Strategy

• Sarath S. Kodithuwakku 3  
• First Online: 10 April 2022

1320 Accesses

Many policy researchers are predisposed to use either quantitative or qualitative research methods regardless of the research questions at hand, leading to varying degrees of gaps in their findings and policy recommendations. Qualitative approaches effectively address why and how types of research questions to complement the answers for who , what , where , how many , and how much research questions, obtained using quantitative research methods, enabling researchers to make policy outcomes meaningful and contextually relevant. This chapter introduces the case study as an appropriate research strategy for accommodating qualitative and quantitative methods, followed by a brief account of qualitative research methods.

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

Buying options

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

For a lucid example for selecting a geographical boundary of a case study, see Kodithuwakku ( 1997 ) and Kodithuwakku and Rosa ( 2002 ) in which the authors selected a Sri Lankan village to explore entrepreneurial behaviour of rural farmers. Similarly, Leach ( 1967 ) drew conclusions on his fieldwork in just one village to counter some interpretations from an extensive survey conducted by Sakar and Tambiah ( 1957 ) in 57 villages on land ownership in Sri Lanka.

Bogdan R, Biklen SK (1982) Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

Google Scholar  

Bonoma TV (1985) Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. J Mark Res XXII:199–208

Article   Google Scholar  

Brunåker S (1993) Farm diversification-new enterprises on competitive markets. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala

Bryman A, Burgess RG (1994) Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, London

Burgess RG (1982) Field research: a source book and a field manual. George Allan & Unwin, London

Cambell DT (1955) The informant in quantitative research. Am J Sociol 60

Cassell C, Symon G (2004) Promoting new research practices in organisational research. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research. Sage, London

Cochrane A (1987) What a difference the place makes: the new structuralism of locality. Antipode 19:354–363

De Vries WM (1993) Farming with other gainful activities in the Netherlands. Sociol Rural XXXIII:190–202

Downey HK, Ireland RD (1979) Quantitative versus qualitative: environmental assessment in organizational studies. Adm Sci Q 24

Eboli M, Turri E (1988) Towards a behavioural model of multiple-job holding farm families. Agric Econ 2:247–258

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550

Fletcher AJ (2017) Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. Int J Soc Res Methodol 20(2):181–194

Freeman LC, Romney AK (1987) Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 89:310–325

Gartner WB, Birley S (2002) Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. J Bus Ventur 17(5):431–465

Geertz CA (1973) The interpretation of culture. Basic Books, New York

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago

Gummesson E (1991) Qualitative research in management research. Sage Publications Inc., California, London, and New Delhi

Gummesson E (1992) Case study research. Stockholm University, Sweden

Hamel J, Dufour S, Fortin D (1993) Case study methods (qualitative research methods series 32). Sage Publications Inc., California, London, and New Delhi

Hammersley M (1989) The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. Routledge, London

Hartley JF (1994) Case studies in organizational research. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage Publications Inc., California, London, and New Delhi

Hartley J (2004) Case study research. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research. Sage, London

Herrmann V, Uttitz P (1990) If only i didn't enjoy being a farmer: attitudes and options of monoactive and pluriactive farmers. Socilogia Ruralis 30(1):62–75

Idries S (2014) The exploits of the incomparable Mulla Nasrudin. ISF Publishing, London, p 9

Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611

Johnson CJ (1990) Selecting ethnographic informants, qualitative research methods series 22. Sage Publications Inc., California, London, and New Delhi

Jones R (1995) Why do qualitative research? It should begin to close the gap between the sciences of discovery and implementation. Br Med J 311:2

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

King N (2004) Using interviews in qualitative research. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research. Sage, London

Kjellen B, Soderman S (1980) Praktikfallsmetodik. SIAR/Liber, Malmo

Kodithuwakku SS (1997) Entrepreneurial processes in an apparently uniform context: a study of rural farmers in Sri Lanka. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Stirling

Kodithuwakku SS, Rosa P (2002) The entrepreneurial process and economic success in a constrained environment. J Bus Ventur 17(5):431–465

Kuzel AJ (1992) Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL (eds) Doing qualitative research: research methods for primary case series 3. Sage Publications, California

Leach ER (1967) An anthropologist’s reflections on a social survey. In: Jongmans DG, Gutkind PCW (eds) Anthropologists in the field. Van Gorcum-HJ Prakke & HMG Prakke, Assen

McClintock C (1985) Process sampling: a method for case study research on administrative behaviour. Educ Adm Q 21(3):205–222

McClintock CC, Brannon D, Moody ST (1979) Applying the logic of sample surveys to qualitative case studies: the case cluster method. Adm Sci Q 24(4):612–629

Miles MB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance. Adm Sci Q 24(4):590–601

Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi

Miles MB, Huberman M, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, California

Moore M (1989) The ideological history of the Sri Lankan ‘peasantry’. Mod Asian Stud 23:1

Ostrander SA (1980) Upper class women: class consciousness as conduct and meaning. In: Domhoff GW (ed) Power structure research. Sage Publications, California

Pope C, Mays N (1995) Researching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health service research. Br Med J 311:42–45

Redclift N, Whatmore S (1990) Household consumption and livelihood: ideologies and issues in rural research. In: Marsden T, Lowe P, Whatmore S (eds) Rural restructuring: global processes and their response. David Fulton, London

Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RD (eds) Analysing qualitative data. Routledge

Rosa P, Bowes A (1990) Entrepreneurship: some lessons of social anthropology. EC SB 4th Workshop on Research in Entrepreneurship, University of Cologne, 29th November

Sakar NK, Tambiah S (1957) The disintegrating village. Report of a socio-economic survey conducted. University Press Board, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya

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

Smith MK, Thorpe R, and Lowe A (1992) Management research: an introduction, Sage Publications Inc., London, Newbury Park, and New Delhi

Stoecker R (1991) Evaluating and rethinking the case study. Sociol Rev 39:88–112

Strauss AL, Schatzman L, Bucher R, Ehrlich D, Sabshin M (1964) Psychiatric ideologies and institutions. The Free Press, New York

Tremblay M (1957) The key informant technique: a non-ethnographical application. Am Anthropol 59:239

Van Maanen J (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a practice. Adm Sci Q 24:520–526

Weiss RS (1968) Issues in holistic research. In: Becker HS, Geer B, Riesman D, Weiss RS (eds) Institutions and the person. Aldine, Chicago

Werner O (1989) Keeping track of your interviews. CAM News Letter 1:1

Yin RK (1981) The case study crisis: some answers. Adm Sci Q 26(1):58–65

Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London

Zonabend F (1992) The monograph in European ethnology. Curr Sociol 40(1):242

Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. In: Applied social research methods series volume 5. Sage Publications, London

Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods, 6th edn. Sage Publications, London

Further Readings

Neergaard H, Ulhøi JP (2007) Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. Northampton, MA

Book   Google Scholar  

Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods, 6th edn. Sage, London

Miles MB, Huberman M, Saldaña J (2020) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 4th edn. Sage, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Sarath S. Kodithuwakku

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Jeevika Weerahewa

Policy Analyst, Technical Assistance to the Modernisation of Agriculture Programme Sri Lanka (TAMAP), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Andrew Jacque

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kodithuwakku, S.S. (2022). Qualitative Methods for Policy Analysis: Case Study Research Strategy. In: Weerahewa, J., Jacque, A. (eds) Agricultural Policy Analysis. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3284-6_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3284-6_7

Published : 10 April 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-3283-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-3284-6

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

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

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 15 April 2024

What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography

• Trisha Greenhalgh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088 1 ,
• Julie L. Darbyshire 1 ,
• Cassie Lee 2 ,
• Emma Ladds 1 &
• Jenny Ceolta-Smith 3  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  159 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

51 Altmetric

Metrics details

Long covid (post covid-19 condition) is a complex condition with diverse manifestations, uncertain prognosis and wide variation in current approaches to management. There have been calls for formal quality standards to reduce a so-called “postcode lottery” of care. The original aim of this study—to examine the nature of quality in long covid care and reduce unwarranted variation in services—evolved to focus on examining the reasons why standardizing care was so challenging in this condition.

In 2021–2023, we ran a quality improvement collaborative across 10 UK sites. The dataset reported here was mostly but not entirely qualitative. It included data on the origins and current context of each clinic, interviews with staff and patients, and ethnographic observations at 13 clinics (50 consultations) and 45 multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (244 patient cases). Data collection and analysis were informed by relevant lenses from clinical care (e.g. evidence-based guidelines), improvement science (e.g. quality improvement cycles) and philosophy of knowledge.

Participating clinics made progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics; some variation remained but this could usually be explained. Clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in their healthcare ecosystem and served a varied caseload including a high proportion of patients with comorbidities. A key mechanism for achieving high-quality long covid care was when local MDTs deliberated on unusual, complex or challenging cases for which evidence-based guidelines provided no easy answers. In such cases, collective learning occurred through idiographic (case-based) reasoning , in which practitioners build lessons from the particular to the general. This contrasts with the nomothetic reasoning implicit in evidence-based guidelines, in which reasoning is assumed to go from the general (e.g. findings of clinical trials) to the particular (management of individual patients).

Not all variation in long covid services is unwarranted. Largely because long covid’s manifestations are so varied and comorbidities common, generic “evidence-based” standards require much individual adaptation. In this complex condition, quality improvement resources may be productively spent supporting MDTs to optimise their case-based learning through interdisciplinary discussion. Quality assessment of a long covid service should include review of a sample of individual cases to assess how guidelines have been interpreted and personalized to meet patients’ unique needs.

Study registration

NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Peer Review reports

The term “long covid” [ 1 ] means prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection not explained by an alternative diagnosis [ 2 ]. It embraces the US term “post-covid conditions” (symptoms beyond 4 weeks) [ 3 ], the UK terms “ongoing symptomatic covid-19” (symptoms lasting 4–12 weeks) and “post covid-19 syndrome” (symptoms beyond 12 weeks) [ 4 ] and the World Health Organization’s “post covid-19 condition” (symptoms occurring beyond 3 months and persisting for at least 2 months) [ 5 ]. Long covid thus defined is extremely common. In UK, for example, 1.8 million of a population of 67 million met the criteria for long covid in early 2023 and 41% of these had been unwell for more than 2 years [ 6 ].

Long covid is characterized by a constellation of symptoms which may include breathlessness, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, chest pain, memory loss and impaired concentration (“brain fog”), sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, palpitations, dizziness, gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea, skin rashes and allergy to food or drugs [ 2 ]. These lead to difficulties with essential daily activities such as washing and dressing, impaired exercise tolerance and ability to work, and reduced quality of life [ 2 , 7 , 8 ]. Symptoms typically cluster (e.g. in different patients, long covid may be dominated by fatigue, by breathlessness or by palpitations and dizziness) [ 9 , 10 ]. Long covid may follow a fairly constant course or a relapsing and remitting one, perhaps with specific triggers [ 11 ]. Overlaps between fatigue-dominant subtypes of long covid, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome have been hypothesized [ 12 ] but at the time of writing remain unproven.

Long covid has been a contested condition from the outset. Whilst long-term sequelae following other coronavirus (SARS and MERS) infections were already well-documented [ 13 ], SARS-CoV-2 was originally thought to cause a short-lived respiratory illness from which the patient either died or recovered [ 14 ]. Some clinicians dismissed protracted or relapsing symptoms as due to anxiety or deconditioning, especially if the patient had not had laboratory-confirmed covid-19. People with long covid got together in online groups and shared accounts of their symptoms and experiences of such “gaslighting” in their healthcare encounters [ 15 , 16 ]. Some groups conducted surveys on their members, documenting the wide range of symptoms listed in the previous paragraph and showing that whilst long covid is more commonly a sequel to severe acute covid-19, it can (rarely) follow a mild or even asymptomatic acute infection [ 17 ].

Early publications on long covid depicted a post-pneumonia syndrome which primarily affected patients who had been hospitalized (and sometimes ventilated) [ 18 , 19 ]. Later, covid-19 was recognized to be a multi-organ inflammatory condition (the pneumonia, for example, was reclassified as pneumonitis ) and its long-term sequelae attributed to a combination of viral persistence, dysregulated immune response (including auto-immunity), endothelial dysfunction and immuno-thrombosis, leading to damage to the lining of small blood vessels and (thence) interference with transfer of oxygen and nutrients to vital organs [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. But most such studies were highly specialized, laboratory-based and written primarily for an audience of fellow laboratory researchers. Despite demonstrating mean differences in a number of metabolic variables, they failed to identify a reliable biomarker that could be used routinely in the clinic to rule a diagnosis of long covid in or out. Whilst the evidence base from laboratory studies grew rapidly, it had little influence on clinical management—partly because most long covid clinics had been set up with impressive speed by front-line clinical teams to address an immediate crisis, with little or no input from immunologists, virologists or metabolic specialists [ 25 ].

Studies of the patient experience revealed wide geographical variation in whether any long covid services were provided and (if they were) which patients were eligible for these and what tests and treatments were available [ 26 ]. An interim UK clinical guideline for long covid had been produced at speed and published in December 2020 [ 27 ], but it was uncertain about diagnostic criteria, investigations, treatments and prognosis. Early policy recommendations for long covid services in England, based on wide consultation across UK, had proposed a tiered service with “tier 1” being supported self-management, “tier 2” generalist assessment and management in primary care, “tier 3” specialist rehabilitation or respiratory follow-up with oversight from a consultant physician and “tier 4” tertiary care for patients with complications or complex needs [ 28 ]. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was allocated to establish 90 multidisciplinary long covid clinics in England [ 29 ]; some clinics were also set up with local funding in Scotland and Wales. These clinics varied widely in eligibility criteria, referral pathways, staffing mix (some had no doctors at all) and investigations and treatments offered. A further policy document on improving long covid services was published in 2022 [ 30 ]; it recommended that specialist long covid clinics should continue, though the long-term funding of these services remains uncertain [ 31 ]. To build the evidence base for delivering long covid services, major programs of publicly funded research were commenced in both UK [ 32 ] and USA [ 33 ].

In short, at the time this study began (late 2021), there appeared to be much scope for a program of quality improvement which would capture fast-emerging research findings, establish evidence-based standards and ensure these were rapidly disseminated and consistently adopted across both specialist long covid services and in primary care.

Quality improvement collaboratives

The quality improvement movement in healthcare was born in the early 1980s when clinicians and policymakers US and UK [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] began to draw on insights from outside the sector [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Adapting a total quality management approach that had previously transformed the Japanese car industry, they sought to improve efficiency, reduce waste, shift to treating the upstream causes of problems (hence preventing disease) and help all services approach the standards of excellence achieved by the best. They developed an approach based on (a) understanding healthcare as a complex system (especially its key interdependencies and workflows), (b) analysing and addressing variation within the system, (c) learning continuously from real-world data and (d) developing leaders who could motivate people and help them change structures and processes [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Quality improvement collaboratives (originally termed “breakthrough collaboratives” [ 45 ]), in which representatives from different healthcare organizations come together to address a common problem, identify best practice, set goals, share data and initiate and evaluate improvement efforts [ 46 ], are one model used to deliver system-wide quality improvement. It is widely assumed that these collaboratives work because—and to the extent that—they identify, interpret and implement high-quality evidence (e.g. from randomized controlled trials).

Research on why quality improvement collaboratives succeed or fail has produced the following list of critical success factors: taking a whole-system approach, selecting a topic and goal that fits with organizations’ priorities, fostering a culture of quality improvement (e.g. that quality is everyone’s job), engagement of everyone (including the multidisciplinary clinical team, managers, patients and families) in the improvement effort, clearly defining people’s roles and contribution, engaging people in preliminary groundwork, providing organizational-level support (e.g. chief executive endorsement, protected staff time, training and support for teams, resources, quality-focused human resource practices, external facilitation if needed), training in specific quality improvement techniques (e.g. plan-do-study-act cycle), attending to the human dimension (including cultivating trust and working to ensure shared vision and buy-in), continuously generating reliable data on both processes (e.g. current practice) and outcomes (clinical, satisfaction) and a “learning system” infrastructure in which knowledge that is generated feeds into individual, team and organizational learning [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ].

The quality improvement collaborative approach has delivered many successes but it has been criticized at a theoretical level for over-simplifying the social science of human motivation and behaviour and for adopting a somewhat mechanical approach to the study of complex systems [ 55 , 56 ]. Adaptations of the original quality improvement methodology (e.g. from Sweden [ 57 , 58 ]) have placed greater emphasis on human values and meaning-making, on the grounds that reducing the complexities of a system-wide quality improvement effort to a set of abstract and generic “success factors” will miss unique aspects of the case such as historical path dependencies, personalities, framing and meaning-making and micropolitics [ 59 ].

Perhaps this explains why, when the abovementioned factors are met, a quality improvement collaborative’s success is more likely but is not guaranteed, as a systematic review demonstrated [ 60 ]. Some well-designed and well-resourced collaboratives addressing clear knowledge gaps produced few or no sustained changes in key outcome measures [ 49 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. To identify why this might be, a detailed understanding of a service’s history, current challenges and contextual constraints is needed. This explains our decision, part-way through the study reported here, to collect rich contextual data on participating sites so as to better explain success or failure of our own collaborative.

Warranted and unwarranted variation in clinical practice

A generation ago, Wennberg described most variation in clinical practice as “unwarranted” (which he defined as variation in the utilization of health care services that cannot be explained by variation in patient illness or patient preferences) [ 63 ]. Others coined the term “postcode lottery” to depict how such variation allegedly impacted on health outcomes [ 64 ]. Wennberg and colleagues’ Atlas of Variation , introduced in 1999 [ 65 ], and its UK equivalent, introduced in 2010 [ 66 ], described wide regional differences in the rates of procedures from arthroscopy to hysterectomy, and were used to prompt services to identify and address examples of under-treatment, mis-treatment and over-treatment. Numerous similar initiatives, mostly based on hospital activity statistics, have been introduced around the world [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Sutherland and Levesque’s proposed framework for analysing variation, for example, has three domains: capacity (broadly, whether sufficient resources are allocated at organizational level and whether individuals have the time and headspace to get involved), evidence (the extent to which evidence-based guidelines exist and are followed), and agency (e.g. whether clinicians are engaged with the issue and the effect of patient choice) [ 70 ].

Whilst it is clearly a good idea to identify unwarranted variation in practice, it is also important to acknowledge that variation can be warranted . The very act of measuring and describing variation carries great rhetorical power, since revealing geographical variation in any chosen metric effectively frames this as a problem with a conceptually simple solution (reducing variation) that will appeal to both politicians and the public [ 71 ]. The temptation to expose variation (e.g. via visualizations such as maps) and address it in mechanistic ways should be resisted until we have fully understood the reasons why it exists, which may include perverse incentives, insufficient opportunities to discuss cases with colleagues, weak or absent feedback on practice, unclear decision processes, contested definitions of appropriate care and professional challenges to guidelines [ 72 ].

Research question, aims and objectives

Research question.

What is quality in long covid care and how can it best be achieved?

To identify best practice and reduce unwarranted variation in UK long covid services.

To explain aspects of variation in long covid services that are or may be warranted.

Our original objectives were to:

Establish a quality improvement collaborative for 10 long covid clinics across UK.

Use quality improvement methods in collaboration with patients and clinic staff to prioritize aspects of care to improve. For each priority topic, identify best (evidence-informed) clinical practice, measure performance in each clinic, compare performance with a best practice benchmark and improve performance.

Produce organizational case studies of participating long covid clinics to explain their origins, evolution, leadership, ethos, population served, patient pathways and place in the wider healthcare ecosystem.

Examine these case studies to explain variation in practice, especially in topics where the quality improvement cycle proves difficult to follow or has limited impact.

The LOCOMOTION study

LOCOMOTION (LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and services across the NHS) was a 30-month multi-site case study of 10 long covid clinics (8 in England, 1 in Wales and 1 in Scotland), beginning in 2021, which sought to optimise long covid care. Each clinic offered multidisciplinary care to patients referred from primary or secondary care (and, in some cases, self-referred), and held regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, mostly online via Microsoft Teams, to discuss cases. A study protocol for LOCOMOTION, with details of ethical approvals, management, governance and patient involvement has been published [ 25 ]. The three main work packages addressed quality improvement, technology-supported patient self-management and phenotyping and symptom clustering. This paper reports on the first work package, focusing mainly on qualitative findings.

Setting up the quality improvement collaborative

We broadly followed standard methodology for “breakthrough” quality improvement collaboratives [ 44 , 45 ], with two exceptions. First, because of geographical distance, continuing pandemic precautions and developments in videoconferencing technology, meetings were held online. Second, unlike in the original breakthrough model, patients were included in the collaborative, reflecting the cultural change towards patient partnerships since the model was originally proposed 40 years ago.

Each site appointed a clinical research fellow (doctor, nurse or allied health professional) funded partly by the LOCOMOTION study and partly with clinical sessions; some were existing staff who were backfilled to take on a research role whilst others were new appointments. The quality improvement meetings were held approximately every 8 weeks on Microsoft Teams and lasted about 2 h; there was an agenda and a chair, and meetings were recorded with consent. The clinical research fellow from each clinic attended, sometimes joined by the clinical lead for that site. In the initial meeting, the group proposed and prioritized topics before merging their consensus with the list of priority topics generated separately by patients (there was much overlap but also some differences).

In subsequent meetings, participants attempted to reach consensus on how to define, measure and achieve quality for each priority topic in turn, implement this approach in their own clinic and monitor its impact. Clinical leads prepared illustrative clinical cases and summaries of the research evidence, which they presented using Microsoft Powerpoint; the group then worked towards consensus on the implications for practice through general discussion. Clinical research fellows assisted with literature searches, collected baseline data from their own clinic, prepared and presented anonymized case examples, and contributed to collaborative goal-setting for improvement. Progress on each topic was reviewed at a later meeting after an agreed interval.

An additional element of this work package was semi-structured interviews with 29 patients, recruited from 9 of the 10 participating sites, about their clinic experiences with a view to feeding into service improvement (in the other site, no patient volunteered).

Our patient advisory group initially met separately from the quality improvement collaborative. They designed a short survey of current practice and sent it to each clinic; the results of this informed a prioritization exercise for topics where they considered change was needed. The patient-generated list was tabled at the quality improvement collaborative discussions, but patients were understandably keen to join these discussions directly. After about 9 months, some patient advisory group members joined the regular collaborative meetings. This dynamic was not without its tensions, since sharing performance data requires trust and there were some concerns about confidentiality when real patient cases were discussed with other patients present.

How evidence-informed quality targets were set

At the time the study began, there were no published large-scale randomized controlled trials of any interventions for long covid. We therefore followed a model used successfully in other quality improvement efforts where research evidence was limited or absent or it did not translate unambiguously into models for current services. In such circumstances, the best evidence may be custom and practice in the best-performing units. The quality improvement effort becomes oriented to what one group of researchers called “potentially better practices”—that is, practices that are “developed through analysis of the processes of care, literature review, and site visits” (page 14) [ 73 ]. The idea was that facilitated discussion among clinical teams, drawing on published research where available but also incorporating clinical experience, established practice and systematic analysis of performance data across participating clinics would surface these “potentially better practices”—an approach which, though not formally tested in controlled trials, appears to be associated with improved outcomes [ 46 , 73 ].

Adding an ethnographic component

Following limited progress made on some topics that had been designated high priority, we interviewed all 10 clinical research fellows (either individually or, in two cases, with a senior clinician present) and 18 other clinic staff (five individually plus two groups of 5 and 8), along with additional informal discussions, to explore the challenges of implementing the changes that had been agreed. These interviews were not audiotaped but detailed notes were made and typed up immediately afterwards. It became evident that some aspects of what the collaborative had deemed “evidence-informed” care were contested by front-line clinic staff, perceived as irrelevant to the service they were delivering, or considered impossible to implement. To unpack these issues further, the research protocol was amended to include an ethnographic component.

TG and EL (academic general practitioners) and JLD (a qualitative researcher with a PhD in the patient experience) attended a total of 45 MDT meetings in participating clinics (mostly online or hybrid). Staff were informed in advance that there would be an observer present; nobody objected. We noted brief demographic and clinical details of cases discussed (but no identifying data), dilemmas and uncertainties on which discussions focused, and how different staff members contributed.

TG made 13 in-person visits to participating long covid clinics. Staff were notified in advance; all were happy to be observed. Visits lasted between 5 and 8 h (54 h in total). We observed support staff booking patients in and processing requests and referrals, and shadowed different clinical staff in turn as they saw patients. Patients were informed of our presence and its purpose beforehand and given the opportunity to decline (three of 53 patients approached did). We discussed aspects of each case with the clinician after the patient left. When invited, we took breaks with staff and used these as an opportunity to ask them informally what it was like working in the clinic.

Ethnographic observation, analysis and reporting was geared to generating a rich interpretive account of the clinical, operational and interpersonal features of each clinic—what Van Maanen calls an “impressionist tales” [ 74 ]. Our work was also guided by the principles set out by Golden-Biddle and Locke, namely authenticity (spending time in the field and basing interpretations on these direct observations), plausibility (creating a plausible account through rich persuasive description) and criticality (e.g. reflexively examining our own assumptions) [ 75 ]. Our collection and analysis of qualitative data was informed by our own professional backgrounds (two general practitioners, one physical therapist, two non-clinicians).

In both MDTs and clinics, we took contemporaneous notes by hand and typed these up immediately afterwards.

Data management and analysis

Typed interview notes and field notes from clinics were collated in a set of Word documents, one for each clinic attended. They were analysed thematically [ 76 ] with attention to the literature on quality improvement and variation (see “ Background ”). Interim summaries were prepared on each clinic, setting out the narrative of how it had been established, its ethos and leadership, setting and staffing, population served and key links with other parts of the local healthcare ecosystem.

Minutes and field notes from the quality improvement collaborative meetings were summarized topic by topic, including initial data collected by the researchers-in-residence, improvement actions taken (or attempted) in that clinic, and any follow-up data shared. Progress or lack of it was interpreted in relation to the contextual case summary for that clinic.

Patient cases seen in clinic, and those discussed by MDTs, were summarized as brief case narratives in Word documents. Using the constant comparative method [ 77 ], we produced an initial synthesis of the clinical picture and principles of management based on the first 10 patient cases seen, and refined this as each additional case was added. Demographic and brief clinical and social details were also logged on Excel spreadsheets. When writing up clinical cases, we used the technique of composite case construction (in which we drew on several actual cases to generate a fictitious one, thereby protecting anonymity whilst preserving key empirical findings [ 78 ]); any names reported in this paper are pseudonyms.

Member checking

A summary was prepared for each clinic, including a narrative of the clinic’s own history and a summary of key quality issues raised across the ten clinics. These summaries included examples from real cases in our dataset. These were shared with the clinical research fellow and a senior clinician from the clinic, and amended in response to feedback. We also shared these summaries with representatives from the patient advisory group.

Overview of dataset

This study generated three complementary datasets. First, the video recordings, minutes, and field notes of 12 quality improvement collaborative meetings, along with the evidence summaries prepared for these meetings and clinic summaries (e.g. descriptions of current practice, audits) submitted by the clinical research fellows. This dataset illustrated wide variation in practice, and (in many topics) gaps or ambiguities in the evidence base.

Second, interviews with staff ( n  = 30) and patients ( n  = 29) from the clinics, along with ethnographic field notes (approximately 100 pages) from 13 in-person clinic visits (54 h), including notes on 50 patient consultations (40 face-to-face, 6 telephone, 4 video). This dataset illustrated the heterogeneity among the ten participating clinics.

Third, field notes (approximately 100 pages), including discussions on 244 clinical cases from the 45 MDT meetings (49 h) that we observed. This dataset revealed further similarities and contrasts among clinics in how patients were managed. In particular, it illustrated how, for the complex patients whose cases were presented at these meetings, teams made sense of, and planned for, each case through multidisciplinary dialogue. This dialogue typically began with one staff member presenting a detailed clinical history along with a narrative of how it had affected the patient’s life and what was at stake for them (e.g. job loss), after which professionals from various backgrounds (nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, psychology, dietetics, and different medical specialties) joined in a discussion about what to do.

The ten participating sites are summarized in Table  1 .

In the next two sections, we explore two issues—difficulty defining best practice and the heterogeneous nature of the clinics—that were key to explaining why quality, when pursued in a 10-site collaborative, proved elusive. We then briefly summarize patients’ accounts of their experience in the clinics and give three illustrative examples of the elusiveness of quality improvement using selected topics that were prioritized in our collaborative: outcome measures, investigation of palpitations and management of fatigue. In the final section of the results, we describe how MDT deliberations proved crucial for local quality improvement. Further detail on clinical priority topics will be presented in a separate paper.

“Best practice” in long covid: uncertainty and conflict

The study period (September 2021 to December 2023) corresponded with an exponential increase in published research on long covid. Despite this, the quality improvement collaborative found few unambiguous recommendations for practice. This gap between what the research literature offered and what clinical practice needed was partly ontological (relating what long covid is ). One major bone of contention between patients and clinicians (also evident in discussions with our patient advisory group), for example, was how far (and in whom) clinicians should look for and attempt to treat the various metabolic abnormalities that had been documented in laboratory research studies. The literature on this topic was extensive but conflicting [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]; it was heavy on biological detail but light on clinical application.

Patients were often aware of particular studies that appeared to offer plausible molecular or cellular explanations for symptom clusters along with a drug (often repurposed and off-label) whose mechanism of action appeared to be a good fit with the metabolic chain of causation. In one clinic, for example, we were shown an email exchange between a patient (not medically qualified) and a consultant, in which the patient asked them to reconsider their decision not to prescribe low-dose naltrexone, an opioid receptor antagonist with anti-inflammatory properties. The request included a copy of a peer-reviewed academic paper describing a small, uncontrolled pre-post study (i.e. a weak study design) in which this drug appeared to improve symptoms and functional performance in patients with long covid, as well as a mechanistic argument explaining why the patient felt this drug was a plausible choice in their own case.

This patient’s clinician, in common with most clinicians delivering front-line long covid services, considered that the evidence for such mechanism-based therapies was weak. Clinicians generally felt that this evidence, whilst promising, did not yet support routine measurement of clotting factors, antibodies, immune cells or other biomarkers or the prescription of mechanism-based therapies such as antivirals, anti-inflammatories or anticoagulants. Low-dose naltroxone, for example, is currently being tested in at least one randomized controlled trial (see National Clinical Trials Registry NCT05430152), which had not reported at the time of our observations.

Another challenge to defining best practice was the oft-repeated phrase that long covid is a “diagnosis by exclusion”, but the high prevalence of comorbidities meant that the “pure” long covid patient untainted by other potential explanations for their symptoms was a textbook ideal. In one MDT, for example, we observed a discussion about a patient who had had both swab-positive covid-19 and erythema migrans (a sign of Lyme disease) in the weeks before developing fatigue, yet local diagnostic criteria for each condition required the other to be excluded.

The logic of management in most participating clinics was pragmatic: prompt multidisciplinary assessment and treatment with an emphasis on obtaining a detailed clinical history (including premorbid health status), excluding serious complications (“red flags”), managing specific symptom clusters (for example, physical therapy for breathing pattern disorder), treating comorbidities (for example, anaemia, diabetes or menopause) and supporting whole-person rehabilitation [ 7 , 83 ]. The evidentiary questions raised in MDT discussions (which did not include patients) addressed the practicalities of the rehabilitation model (for example, whether cognitive therapy for neurocognitive complications is as effective when delivered online as it is when delivered in-person) rather than the molecular or cellular mechanisms of disease. For example, the question of whether patients with neurocognitive impairment should be tested for micro-clots or treated with anticoagulants never came up in the MDTs we observed, though we did visit a tertiary referral clinic (the tier 4 clinic in site H), whose lead clinician had a research interest in inflammatory coagulopathies and offered such tests to selected patients.

Because long covid typically produces dozens of symptoms that tend to be uniquely patterned in each patient, the uncertainties on which MDT discussions turned were rarely about general evidence of the kind that might be found in a guideline (e.g. how should fatigue be managed?). Rather they concerned particular case-based clinical decisions (e.g. how should this patient’s fatigue be managed, given the specifics of this case?). An example from our field notes illustrates this:

Physical therapist presents the case of a 39-year-old woman who works as a cleaner on an overnight ferry. Has had long covid for 2 years. Main symptoms are shortness of breath and possible anxiety attacks, especially when at work. She has had a course of physical therapy to teach diaphragmatic breathing but has found that focusing on her breathing makes her more anxious. Patient has to do a lot of bending in her job (e.g. cleaning toilets and under seats), which makes her dizzy, but Active Stand Test was normal. She also has very mild tricuspid incompetence [someone reads out a cardiology report—not hemodynamically significant].

Rehabilitation guidelines (e.g. WHO) recommend phased return to work (e.g. with reduced hours) and frequent breaks. “Tricky!” says someone. The job is intense and busy, and the patient can’t afford not to work. Discussion on whether all her symptoms can be attributed to tension and anxiety. Physical therapist who runs the breathing group says, “No, it’s long covid”, and describes severe initial covid-19 episode and results of serial chest X-rays which showed gradual clearing of ground glass shadows. Team discussion centers on how to negotiate reduced working hours in this particular job, given the overnight ferry shifts. --MDT discussion, Site D

This example raises important considerations about the nature of clinical knowledge in long covid. We return to it in the final section of the “ Results ” and in the “ Discussion ”.

Long covid clinics: a heterogeneous context for quality improvement

Most participating clinics had been established in mid-2020 to follow up patients who had been hospitalized (and perhaps ventilated) for severe acute covid-19. As mass vaccination reduced the severity of acute covid-19 for most people, the patient population in all clinics progressively shifted to include fewer “post-ICU [intensive care unit]” patients (in whom respiratory symptoms almost always dominated), and more people referred by their general practitioners or other secondary care specialties who had not been hospitalized for their acute covid-19 infection, and in whom fatigue, brain fog and palpitations were often the most troubling symptoms. Despite these similarities, the ten clinics had very different histories, geographical and material settings, staffing structures, patient pathways and case mix, as Table  1 illustrates. Below, we give more detail on three example sites.

Site C was established as a generalist “assessment-only” service by a general practitioner with an interest in infectious diseases. It is led jointly by that general practitioner and an occupational therapist, assisted by a wide range of other professionals including speech and language therapy, dietetics, clinical psychology and community-based physical therapy and occupational therapy. It has close links with a chronic fatigue service and a pain clinic that have been running in the locality for over 20 years. The clinic, which is entirely virtual (staff consult either from home or from a small side office in the community trust building), is physically located in a low-rise building on the industrial outskirts of a large town, sharing office space with various community-based health and social care services. Following a 1-h telephone consultation by one of the clinical leads, each patient is discussed at the MDT and then either discharged back to their general practitioner with a detailed management plan or referred on to one of the specialist services. This arrangement evolved to address a particular problem in this locality—that many patients with long covid were being referred by their general practitioner to multiple specialties (e.g. respiratory, neurology, fatigue), leading to a fragmented patient experience, unnecessary specialist assessments and wasteful duplication. The generalist assessment by telephone is oriented to documenting what is often a complex illness narrative (including pre-existing physical and mental comorbidities) and working with the patient to prioritize which symptoms or problems to pursue in which order.

Site E, in a well-regarded inner-city teaching hospital, had been set up in 2020 by a respiratory physician. Its initial ethos and rationale had been “respiratory follow-up”, with strong emphasis on monitoring lung damage via repeated imaging and lung function tests and in ensuring that patients received specialist physical therapy to “re-learn” efficient breathing techniques. Over time, this site has tried to accommodate a more multi-system assessment, with the introduction of a consultant-led infectious disease clinic for patients without a dominant respiratory component, reflecting the shift towards a more fatigue-predominant case mix. At the time of our fieldwork, each patient was seen in turn by a physician, psychologist, occupational therapist and respiratory physical therapist (half an hour each) before all four staff reconvened in a face-to-face MDT meeting to form a plan for each patient. But whilst a wide range of patients with diverse symptoms were discussed at these meetings, there remained a strong focus on respiratory pathology (e.g. tracking improvements in lung function and ensuring that coexisting asthma was optimally controlled).

Site F, one of the first long covid clinics in UK, was set up by a rehabilitation consultant who had been drafted to work on the ICU during the first wave of covid-19 in early 2020. He had a longstanding research interest in whole-patient rehabilitation, especially the assessment and management of chronic fatigue and pain. From the outset, clinic F was more oriented to rehabilitation, including vocational rehabilitation to help patients return to work. There was less emphasis on monitoring lung function or pursuing respiratory comorbidities. At the time of our fieldwork, clinic F offered both a community-based service (“tier 2”) led by an occupational therapist, supported by a respiratory physical therapist and psychologist, and a hospital-based service (“tier 3”) led by the rehabilitation consultant, supported by a wider MDT. Staff in both tiers emphasized that each patient needs a full physical and mental assessment and help to set and work towards achievable goals, whilst staying within safe limits so as to avoid post-exertional symptom exacerbation. Because of the research interest of the lead physician, clinic F adapted well to the growing numbers of patients with fatigue and quickly set up research studies on this cohort [ 84 ].

Details of the other seven sites are shown in Table  1 . Broadly speaking, sites B, E, G and H aligned with the “respiratory follow-up” model and sites F and I aligned with the “rehabilitation” model. Sites A and J had a high-volume, multi-tiered service whose community tier aligned with the “holistic GP assessment” model (site C above) and which also offered a hospital-based, rehabilitation-focused tier. The small service in Scotland (site D) had evolved from an initial respiratory focus to become part of the infectious diseases (ME/CFS) service; Lyme disease (another infectious disease whose sequelae include chronic fatigue) was also prevalent in this region.

The patient experience

Whilst the 10 participating clinics were very diverse in staffing, ethos and patient flows, the 29 patient interviews described remarkably consistent clinic experiences. Almost all identified the biggest problem to be the extended wait of several months before they were seen and the limited awareness (when initially referred) of what long covid clinics could provide. Some talked of how they cried with relief when they finally received an appointment. When the quality improvement collaborative was initially established, waiting times and bottlenecks were patients’ the top priority for quality improvement, and this ranking was shared by clinic staff, who were very aware of how much delays and uncertainties in assessment and treatment compounded patients’ suffering. This issue resolved to a large extent over the study period in all clinics as the referral backlog cleared and the incidence of new cases of long covid fell [ 85 ]; it will be covered in more detail in a separate publication.

Most patients in our sample were satisfied with the care they received when they were finally seen in clinic, especially how they finally felt “heard” after a clinician took a full history. They were relieved to receive affirmation of their experience, a diagnosis of what was wrong and reassurance that they were believed. They were grateful for the input of different members of the multidisciplinary teams and commented on the attentiveness, compassion and skill of allied professionals in particular (“she was wonderful, she got me breathing again”—patient BIR145 talking about a physical therapist). One or two patient participants expressed confusion about who exactly they had seen and what advice they had been given, and some did not realize that a telephone assessment had been an actual clinical consultation. A minority expressed disappointment that an expected investigation had not been ordered (one commented that they had not had any blood tests at all). Several had assumed that the help and advice from the long covid clinic would continue to be offered until they were better and were disappointed that they had been discharged after completing the various courses on offer (since their clinic had been set up as an “assessment only” service).

In the next sections, we give examples of topics raised in the quality improvement collaborative and how they were addressed.

Example quality topic 1: Outcome measures

The first topic considered by the quality improvement collaborative was how (that is, using which measures and metrics) to assess and monitor patients with long covid. In the absence of a validated biomarker, various symptom scores and quality of life scales—both generic and disease-specific—were mooted. Site F had already developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the C19-YRS (Covid-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale) and used it for both research and clinical purposes [ 86 ]. It was quickly agreed that, for the purposes of generating comparative research findings across the ten clinics, the C19-YRS should be used at all sites and completed by patients three-monthly. A commercial partner produced an electronic version of this instrument and an app for patient smartphones. The quality improvement collaborative also agreed that patients should be asked to complete the EUROQOL EQ5D, a widely used generic health-related quality of life scale [ 87 ], in order to facilitate comparisons between long covid and other chronic conditions.

In retrospect, the discussions which led to the unopposed adoption of these two measures as a “quality” initiative in clinical care were somewhat aspirational. A review of progress at a subsequent quality improvement meeting revealed considerable variation among clinics, with a wide variety of measures used in different clinics to different degrees. Reasons for this variation were multiple. First, although our patient advisory group were keen that we should gather as much data as possible on the patient experience of this new condition, many clinic patients found the long questionnaires exhausting to complete due to cognitive impairment and fatigue. In addition, whilst patients were keen to answer questions on symptoms that troubled them, many had limited patience to fill out repeated surveys on symptoms that did not trouble them (“it almost felt as if I’ve not got long covid because I didn’t feel like I fit the criteria as they were laying it out”—patient SAL001). Staff assisted patients in completing the measures when needed, but this was time-consuming (up to 45 min per instrument) and burdensome for both staff and patients. In clinics where a high proportion of patients required assistance, staff time was the rate-limiting factor for how many instruments got completed. For some patients, one short instrument was the most that could be asked of them, and the clinician made a judgement on which one would be in their best interests on the day.

The second reason for variation was that the clinical diagnosis and management of particular features, complications and comorbidities of long covid required more nuance than was provided by these relatively generic instruments, and the level of detail sought varied with the specialist interest of the clinic (and the clinician). The modified C19-YRS [ 88 ], for example, contained 19 items, of which one asked about sleep quality. But if a patient had sleep difficulties, many clinicians felt that these needed to be documented in more detail—for example using the 8-item Epworth Sleepiness Scale, originally developed for conditions such as narcolepsy and obstructive sleep apnea [ 89 ]. The “Epworth score” was essential currency for referrals to some but not all specialist sleep services. Similarly, the C19-YRS had three items relating to anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, but in clinics where there was a strong focus on mental health (e.g. when there was a resident psychologist), patients were usually invited to complete more specific tools (e.g. the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 [ 90 ], a 9-item questionnaire originally designed to assess severity of depression).

The third reason for variation was custom and practice. Ethnographic visits revealed that paper copies of certain instruments were routinely stacked on clinicians’ desks in outpatient departments and also (in some cases) handed out by administrative staff in waiting areas so that patients could complete them before seeing the clinician. These familiar clinic artefacts tended to be short (one-page) instruments that had a long tradition of use in clinical practice. They were not always fit for purpose. For example, the Nijmegen questionnaire was developed in the 1980s to assess hyperventilation; it was validated against a longer, “gold standard” instrument for that condition [ 91 ]. It subsequently became popular in respiratory clinics to diagnose or exclude breathing pattern disorder (a condition in which the normal physiological pattern of breathing becomes replaced with less efficient, shallower breathing [ 92 ]), so much so that the researchers who developed the instrument published a paper to warn fellow researchers that it had not been validated for this purpose [ 93 ]. Whilst a validated 17-item instrument for breathing pattern disorder (the Self-Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire [ 94 ]) does exist, it is not in widespread clinical use. Most clinics in LOCOMOTION used Nijmegen either on all patients (e.g. as part of a comprehensive initial assessment, especially if the service had begun as a respiratory follow-up clinic) or when breathing pattern disorder was suspected.

In sum, the use of outcome measures in long covid clinics was a compromise between standardization and contingency. On the one hand, all clinics accepted the need to use “validated” instruments consistently. On the other hand, there were sometimes good reasons why they deviated from agreed practice, including mismatch between the clinic’s priorities as a research site, its priorities as a clinical service, and the particular clinical needs of a patient; the clinic’s—and the clinician’s—specialist focus; and long-held traditions of using particular instruments with which staff and patients were familiar.

Example quality topic 2: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)

Palpitations (common in long covid) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS, a disproportionate acceleration in heart rate on standing, the assumed cause of palpitations in many long covid patients) was the top priority for quality improvement identified by our patient advisory group. Reflecting discussions and evidence (of various kinds) shared in online patient communities, the group were confident that POTS is common in long covid patients and that many cases remain undetected (perhaps misdiagnosed as anxiety). Their request that all long covid patients should be “screened” for POTS prompted a search for, and synthesis of, evidence (which we published in the BMJ [ 95 ]). In sum, that evidence was sparse and contested, but, combined with standard practice in specialist clinics, broadly supported the judicious use of the NASA Lean Test [ 96 ]. This test involves repeated measurements of pulse and blood pressure with the patient first lying and then standing (with shoulders resting against a wall).

The patient advisory group’s request that the NASA Lean Test should be conducted on all patients met with mixed responses from the clinics. In site F, the lead physician had an interest in autonomic dysfunction in chronic fatigue and was keen; he had already published a paper on how to adapt the NASA Lean Test for self-assessment at home [ 97 ]. Several other sites were initially opposed. Staff at site E, for example, offered various arguments:

The test is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and takes up space in the clinic which has an opportunity cost in terms of other potential uses;

The test is unvalidated and potentially misleading (there is a high incidence of both false negative and false positive results);

There is no proven treatment for POTS, so there is no point in testing for it;

It is a specialist test for a specialist condition, so it should be done in a specialist clinic where its benefits and limitations are better understood;

Objective testing does not change clinical management since what we treat is the patient’s symptoms (e.g. by a pragmatic trial of lifestyle measures and medication);

People with symptoms suggestive of dysautonomia have already been “triaged out” of this clinic (that is, identified in the initial telephone consultation and referred directly to neurology or cardiology);

POTS is a manifestation of the systemic nature of long covid; it does not need specific treatment but will improve spontaneously as the patient goes through standard interventions such as active pacing, respiratory physical therapy and sleep hygiene;

Testing everyone, even when asymptomatic, runs counter to the ethos of rehabilitation, which is to “de-medicalize” patients so as to better orient them to their recovery journey.

When clinics were invited to implement the NASA Lean Test on a consecutive sample of patients to resolve a dispute about the incidence of POTS (from “we’ve only seen a handful of people with it since the clinic began” to “POTS is common and often missed”), all but one site agreed to participate. The tertiary POTS centre linked to site H was already running the NASA Lean Test as standard on all patients. Site C, which operated entirely virtually, passed the work to the referring general practitioner by making this test a precondition for seeing the patient; site D, which was largely virtual, sent instructions for patients to self-administer the test at home.

The NASA Lean Test study has been published separately [ 98 ]. In sum, of 277 consecutive patients tested across the eight clinics, 20 (7%) had a positive NASA Lean Test for POTS and a further 28 (10%) a borderline result. Six of 20 patients who met the criteria for POTS on testing had no prior history of orthostatic intolerance. The question of whether this test should be used to “screen” all patients was not answered definitively. But the experience of participating in the study persuaded some sceptics that postural changes in heart rate could be severe in some long covid patients, did not appear to be fully explained by their previously held theories (e.g. “functional”, anxiety, deconditioning), and had likely been missed in some patients. The outcome of this particular quality improvement cycle was thus not a wholescale change in practice (for which the evidence base was weak) but a more subtle increase in clinical awareness, a greater willingness to consider testing for POTS and a greater commitment to contribute to research into this contested condition.

More generally, the POTS audit prompted some clinicians to recognize the value of quality improvement in novel clinical areas. One physician who had initially commented that POTS was not seen in their clinic, for example, reflected:

“ Our clinic population is changing. […] Overall there’s far fewer post-ICU patients with ECMO [extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation] issues and far more long covid from the community, and this is the bit our clinic isn’t doing so well on. We’re doing great on breathing pattern disorder; neuro[logists] are helping us with the brain fogs; our fatigue and occupational advice is ok but some of the dysautonomia symptoms that are more prevalent in the people who were not hospitalized – that’s where we need to improve .” -Respiratory physician, site G (from field visit 6.6.23)

Example quality topic 3: Management of fatigue

Fatigue was the commonest symptom overall and a high priority among both patients and clinicians for quality improvement. It often coexisted with the cluster of neurocognitive symptoms known as brain fog, with both conditions relapsing and remitting in step. Clinicians were keen to systematize fatigue management using a familiar clinical framework oriented around documenting a full clinical history, identifying associated symptoms, excluding or exploring comorbidities and alternative explanations (e.g. poor sleep patterns, depression, menopause, deconditioning), assessing how fatigue affects physical and mental function, implementing a program of physical and cognitive therapy that was sensitive to the patient’s condition and confidence level, and monitoring progress using validated patient-reported outcome measures and symptom diaries.

The underpinning logic of this approach, which broadly reflected World Health Organization guidance [ 99 ], was that fatigue and linked cognitive impairment could be a manifestation of many—perhaps interacting—conditions but that a whole-patient (body and mind) rehabilitation program was the cornerstone of management in most cases. Discussion in the quality improvement collaborative focused on issues such as whether fatigue was so severe that it produced safety concerns (e.g. in a person’s job or with childcare), the pros and cons of particular online courses such as yoga, relaxation and mindfulness (many were viewed positively, though the evidence base was considered weak), and the extent to which respiratory physical therapy had a crossover impact on fatigue (systematic reviews suggested that it may do, but these reviews also cautioned that primary studies were sparse, methodologically flawed, and heterogeneous [ 100 , 101 ]). They also debated the strengths and limitations of different fatigue-specific outcome measures, each of which had been developed and validated in a different condition, with varying emphasis on cognitive fatigue, physical fatigue, effect on daily life, and motivation. These instruments included the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; Fatigue Severity Scale [ 102 ]; Fatigue Assessment Scale; Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy—Fatigue (FACIT-F) [ 103 ]; Work and Social Adjustment Scale [ 104 ]; Chalder Fatigue Scale [ 105 ]; Visual Analogue Scale—Fatigue [ 106 ]; and the EQ5D [ 87 ]. In one clinic (site F), three of these scales were used in combination for reasons discussed below.

Some clinicians advocated melatonin or nutritional supplements (such as vitamin D or folic acid) for fatigue on the grounds that many patients found them helpful and formal placebo-controlled trials were unlikely ever to be conducted. But neurostimulants used in other fatigue-predominant conditions (e.g. brain injury, stroke), which also lacked clinical trial evidence in long covid, were viewed as inappropriate in most patients because of lack of evidence of clear benefit and hypothetical risk of harm (e.g. adverse drug reactions, polypharmacy).

Whilst the patient advisory group were broadly supportive of a whole-patient rehabilitative approach to fatigue, their primary concern was fatiguability , especially post-exertional symptom exacerbation (PESE, also known as “crashes”). In these, the patient becomes profoundly fatigued some hours or days after physical or mental exertion, and this state can last for days or even weeks [ 107 ]. Patients viewed PESE as a “red flag” symptom which they felt clinicians often missed and sometimes caused. They wanted the quality improvement effort to focus on ensuring that all clinicians were aware of the risks of PESE and acted accordingly. A discussion among patients and clinicians at a quality improvement collaborative meeting raised a new research hypothesis—that reducing the number of repeated episodes of PESE may improve the natural history of long covid.

These tensions around fatigue management played out differently in different clinics. In site C (the GP-led virtual clinic run from a community hub), fatigue was viewed as one manifestation of a whole-patient condition. The lead general practitioner used the metaphor of untangling a skein of wool: “you have to find the end and then gently pull it”. The underlying problem in a fatigued patient, for example, might be an undiagnosed physical condition such as anaemia, disturbed sleep, or inadequate pacing. These required (respectively) the chronic fatigue service (comprising an occupational therapist and specialist psychologist and oriented mainly to teaching the techniques of goal-setting and pacing), a “tiredness” work-up (e.g. to exclude anaemia or menopause), investigation of poor sleep (which, not uncommonly, was due to obstructive sleep apnea), and exploration of mental health issues.

In site G (a hospital clinic which had evolved from a respiratory service), patients with fatigue went through a fatigue management program led by the occupational therapist with emphasis on pacing, energy conservation, avoidance of PESE and sleep hygiene. Those without ongoing respiratory symptoms were often discharged back to their general practitioner once they had completed this; there was no consultant follow-up of unresolved fatigue.

In site F (a rehabilitation clinic which had a longstanding interest in chronic fatigue even before the pandemic), active interdisciplinary management of fatigue was commenced at or near the patient’s first visit, on the grounds that the earlier this began, the more successful it would be. In this clinic, patients were offered a more intensive package: a similar occupational therapy-led fatigue course as those in site G, plus input from a dietician to advise on regular balanced meals and caffeine avoidance and a group-based facilitated peer support program which centred on fatigue management. The dietician spoke enthusiastically about how improving diet in longstanding long covid patients often improved fatigue (e.g. because they had often lost muscle mass and tended to snack on convenience food rather than make meals from scratch), though she agreed there was no evidence base from trials to support this approach.

Pursuing local quality improvement through MDTs

Whilst some long covid patients had “textbook” symptoms and clinical findings, many cases were unique and some were fiendishly complex. One clinician commented that, somewhat paradoxically, “easy cases” were often the post-ICU follow-ups who had resolving chest complications; they tended to do well with a course of respiratory physical therapy and a return-to-work program. Such cases were rarely brought to MDT meetings. “Difficult cases” were patients who had not been hospitalized for their acute illness but presented with a months- or years-long history of multiple symptoms with fatigue typically predominant. Each one was different, as the following example (some details of which have been fictionalized to protect anonymity) illustrates.

The MDT is discussing Mrs Fermah, a 65-year-old homemaker who had covid-19 a year ago. She has had multiple symptoms since, including fluctuating fatigue, brain fog, breathlessness, retrosternal chest pain of burning character, dry cough, croaky voice, intermittent rashes (sometimes on eating), lips going blue, ankle swelling, orthopnoea, dizziness with the room spinning which can be triggered by stress, low back pain, aches and pains in the arms and legs and pins and needles in the fingertips, loss of taste and smell, palpitations and dizziness (unclear if postural, but clear association with nausea), headaches on waking, and dry mouth. She is somewhat overweight (body mass index 29) and admits to low mood. Functionally, she is mostly confined to the house and can no longer manage the stairs so has begun to sleep downstairs. She has stumbled once or twice but not fallen. Her social life has ceased and she rarely has the energy to see her grandchildren. Her 70-year-old husband is retired and generally supportive, though he spends most evenings at his club. Comorbidities include glaucoma which is well controlled and overseen by an ophthalmologist, mild club foot (congenital) and stage 1 breast cancer 20 years ago. Various tests, including a chest X-ray, resting and exercise oximetry and a blood panel, were normal except for borderline vitamin D level. Her breathing questionnaire score suggests she does not have breathing pattern disorder. ECG showed first-degree atrioventricular block and left axis deviation. No clinician has witnessed the blue lips. Her current treatment is online group respiratory physical therapy; a home visit is being arranged to assess her climbing stairs. She has declined a psychologist assessment. The consultant asks the nurse who assessed her: “Did you get a feel if this is a POTS-type dizziness or an ENT-type?” She sighs. “Honestly it was hard to tell, bless her.”—Site A MDT

This patient’s debilitating symptoms and functional impairments could all be due to long covid, yet “evidence-based” guidance for how to manage her complex suffering does not exist and likely never will exist. The question of which (if any) additional blood or imaging tests to do, in what order of priority, and what interventions to offer the patient will not be definitively answered by consulting clinical trials involving hundreds of patients, since (even if these existed) the decision involves weighing this patient’s history and the multiple factors and uncertainties that are relevant in her case. The knowledge that will help the MDT provide quality care to Mrs Fermah is case-based knowledge—accumulated clinical experience and wisdom from managing and deliberating on multiple similar cases. We consider case-based knowledge further in the “ Discussion ”.

Summary of key findings

This study has shown that a quality improvement collaborative of UK long covid clinics made some progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics, but some variation remained. This could be explained in part by the fact that different clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in the local healthcare ecosystem, served different populations, were differently staffed, and had different clinical interests. Our patient advisory group and clinicians in the quality improvement collaborative broadly prioritized the same topics for improvement but interpreted them somewhat differently. “Quality” long covid care had multiple dimensions, relating to (among other things) service set-up and accessibility, clinical provision appropriate to the patient’s need (including options for referral to other services locally), the human qualities of clinical and support staff, how knowledge was distributed across (and accessible within) the system, and the accumulated collective wisdom of local MDTs in dealing with complex cases (including multiple kinds of specialist expertise as well as relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient). Whilst both staff and patients were keen to contribute to the quality improvement effort, the burden of measurement was evident: multiple outcome measures, used repeatedly, were resource-intensive for staff and exhausting for patients.

Strengths and limitations of this study

To our knowledge, we are the first to report both a quality improvement collaborative and an in-depth qualitative study of clinical work in long covid. Key strengths of this work include the diverse sampling frame (with sites from three UK jurisdictions and serving widely differing geographies and demographics); the use of documents, interviews and reflexive interpretive ethnography to produce meaningful accounts of how clinics emerged and how they were currently organized; the use of philosophical concepts to analyse data on how MDTs produced quality care on a patient-by-patient basis; and the close involvement of patient co-researchers and coauthors during the research and writing up.

Limitations of the study include its exclusive UK focus (the external validity of findings to other healthcare systems is unknown); the self-selecting nature of participants in a quality improvement collaborative (our patient advisory group suggested that the MDTs observed in this study may have represented the higher end of a quality spectrum, hence would be more likely than other MDTs to adhere to guidelines); and the particular perspective brought by the researchers (two GPs, a physical therapist and one non-clinical person) in ethnographic observations. Hospital specialists or organizational scholars, for example, may have noticed different things or framed what they observed differently.

Explaining variation in long covid care

Sutherland and Levesque’s framework mentioned in the “ Background ” section does not explain much of the variation found in our study [ 70 ]. In terms of capacity, at the time of this study most participating clinics benefited from ring-fenced resources. In terms of evidence, guidelines existed and were not greatly contested, but as illustrated by the case of Mrs Fermah above, many patients were exceptions to the guideline because of complex symptomatology and relevant comorbidities. In terms of agency, clinicians in most clinics were passionately engaged with long covid (they were pioneers who had set up their local clinic and successfully bid for national ring-fenced resources) and were generally keen to support patient choice (though not if the patient requested tests which were unavailable or deemed not indicated).

Astma et al.’s list of factors that may explain variation in practice (see “ Background ”) includes several that may be relevant to long covid, especially that the definition of appropriate care in this condition remains somewhat contested. But lack of opportunity to discuss cases was not a problem in the clinics in our sample. On the contrary, MDT meetings in each locality gave clinicians multiple opportunities to discuss cases with colleagues and reflect collectively on whether and how to apply particular guidelines.

The key problem was not that clinicians disputed the guidelines for managing long covid or were unaware of them; it was that the guidelines were not self-interpreting . Rather, MDTs had to deliberate on the balance of benefits and harms in different aspects of individual cases. In patients whose symptoms suggested a possible diagnosis of POTS (or who suspected themselves of having POTS), for example, these deliberations were sometimes lengthy and nuanced. Should a test result that is not technically in the abnormal range but close to it be treated as diagnostic, given that symptoms point to this diagnosis? If not, should the patient be told that the test excludes POTS or that it is equivocal? If a cardiology opinion has stated firmly that the patient does not have POTS but the cardiologist is not known for their interest in this condition, should a second specialist opinion be sought? If the gold standard “tilt test” [ 108 ] for POTS (usually available only in tertiary centres) is not available locally, does this patient merit a costly out-of-locality referral? Should the patient’s request for a trial of off-label medication, reflecting discussions in an online support group, be honoured? These are the kinds of questions on which MDTs deliberated at length.

The fact that many cases required extensive deliberation does not necessarily justify variation in practice among clinics. But taking into account the clinics’ very different histories, set-up, and local referral pathways, the variation begins to make sense. A patient who is being assessed in a clinic that functions as a specialist chronic fatigue centre and attracts referrals which reflect this interest (e.g. site F in our sample) will receive different management advice from one that functions as a telephone-only generalist assessment centre and refers on to other specialties (site C in our sample). The wide variation in case mix, coupled with the fact that a different proportion of these cases were highly complex in each clinic (and in different ways), suggests that variation in practice may reflect appropriate rather than inappropriate care.

Our patient advisory group affirmed that many of the findings reported here resonated with their own experience, but they raised several concerns. These included questions about patient groups who may have been missed in our sample because they were rarely discussed in MDTs. The decision to take a case to MDT discussion is taken largely by a clinician, and there was evidence from online support groups that some patients’ requests for their case to be taken to an MDT had been declined (though not, to our knowledge, in the clinics participating in the LOCOMOTION study).

We began this study by asking “what is quality in long covid care?”. We initially assumed that this question referred to a generalizable evidence base, which we felt we could identify, and we believed that we could then determine whether long covid clinics were following the evidence base through conventional audits of structure, process, and outcome. In retrospect, these assumptions were somewhat naïve. On the basis of our findings, we suggest that a better (and more individualized) research question might be “to what extent does each patient with long covid receive evidence-based care appropriate to their needs?”. This question would require individual case review on a sample of cases, tracking each patient longitudinally including cross-referrals, and also interviewing the patient.

Nomothetic versus idiographic knowledge

In a series of lectures first delivered in the 1950s and recently republished [ 109 ], psychiatrist Dr Maurice O’Connor Drury drew on the later philosophy of his friend and mentor Ludwig Wittgenstein to challenge what he felt was a concerning trend: that the nomothetic (generalizable, abstract) knowledge from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was coming to over-ride the idiographic (personal, situated) knowledge about particular patients. Based on Wittgenstein’s writings on the importance of the particular, Drury predicted—presciently—that if implemented uncritically, RCTs would result in worse, not better, care for patients, since it would go hand-in-hand with a downgrading of experience, intuition, subjective judgement, personal reflection, and collective deliberation.

Much conventional quality improvement methodology is built on an assumption that nomothetic knowledge (for example, findings from RCTs and systematic reviews) is a higher form of knowing than idiographic knowledge. But idiographic, case-based reasoning—despite its position at the very bottom of evidence-based medicine’s hierarchy of evidence [ 110 ]—is a legitimate and important element of medical practice. Bioethicist Kathryn Montgomery, drawing on Aristotle’s notion of praxis , considers clinical practice to be an example of case-based reasoning [ 111 ]. Medicine is governed not by hard and fast laws but by competing maxims or rules of thumb ; the essence of judgement is deciding which (if any) rule should be applied in a particular circumstance. Clinical judgement incorporates science (especially the results of well-conducted research) and makes use of available tools and technologies (including guidelines and decision-support algorithms that incorporate research findings). But rather than being determined solely by these elements, clinical judgement is guided both by the scientific evidence and by the practical and ethical question “what is it best to do, for this individual, given these circumstances?”.

In this study, we observed clinical management of, and MDT deliberations on, hundreds of clinical cases. In the more straightforward ones (for example, recovering pneumonitis), guideline-driven care was not difficult to implement and such cases were rarely brought to the MDT. But cases like Mrs Fermah (see last section of “ Results ”) required much discussion on which aspects of which guideline were in the patient’s best interests to bring into play at any particular stage in their illness journey.

Conclusions

One systematic review on quality improvement collaboratives concluded that “ [those] reporting success generally addressed relatively straightforward aspects of care, had a strong evidence base and noted a clear evidence-practice gap in an accepted clinical pathway or guideline” (page 226) [ 60 ]. The findings from this study suggest that to the extent that such collaboratives address clinical cases that are not straightforward, conventional quality improvement methods may be less useful and even counterproductive.

The question “what is quality in long covid care?” is partly a philosophical one. Our findings support an approach that recognizes and values idiographic knowledge —including establishing and protecting a safe and supportive space for deliberation on individual cases to occur and to value and draw upon the collective learning that occurs in these spaces. It is through such deliberation that evidence-based guidelines can be appropriately interpreted and applied to the unique needs and circumstances of individual patients. We suggest that Drury’s warning about the limitations of nomothetic knowledge should prompt a reassessment of policies that rely too heavily on such knowledge, resulting in one-size-fits-all protocols. We also cautiously hypothesize that the need to centre the quality improvement effort on idiographic rather than nomothetic knowledge is unlikely to be unique to long covid. Indeed, such an approach may be particularly important in any condition that is complex, unpredictable, variable in presentation and clinical course, and associated with comorbidities.

Availability of data and materials

Selected qualitative data (ensuring no identifiable information) will be made available to formal research teams on reasonable request to Professor Greenhalgh at the University of Oxford, on condition that they have research ethics approval and relevant expertise. The quantitative data on NASA Lean Test have been published in full in a separate paper [ 98 ].

Abbreviations

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Intensive care unit

Jenny Ceolta-Smith

Julie Darbyshire

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and services across the NHS

Multidisciplinary team

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

National Aeronautics and Space Association

Occupational therapy/ist

Post-exertional symptom exacerbation

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

Speech and language therapy

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Trisha Greenhalgh

United Kingdom

United States

World Health Organization

Perego E, Callard F, Stras L, Melville-JÛhannesson B, Pope R, Alwan N. Why the Patient-Made Term “Long Covid” is needed. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:224.

Article   Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh T, Sivan M, Delaney B, Evans R, Milne R: Long covid—an update for primary care. bmj 2022;378:e072117.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US): Long COVID or Post-COVID Conditions (updated 16th December 2022). Atlanta: CDC. Accessed 2nd June 2023 at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html ; 2022.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP): COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19, vol. Accessed 30th January 2022 at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-the-longterm-effects-of-covid19-pdf-51035515742 . London: NICE; 2022.

Organization WH: Post Covid-19 Condition (updated 7th December 2022), vol. Accessed 2nd June 2023 at https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/post-covid-19-condition#:~:text=It%20is%20defined%20as%20the,months%20with%20no%20other%20explanation . Geneva: WHO; 2022.

Office for National Statistics: Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK: 31st March 2023. London: ONS. Accessed 30th May 2023 at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/alldatarelatingtoprevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk ; 2023.

Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P: Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. bmj 2021;374.

Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, Graham MS, Penfold RS, Bowyer RC, Pujol JC, Klaser K, Antonelli M, Canas LS. Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):626–31.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Reese JT, Blau H, Casiraghi E, Bergquist T, Loomba JJ, Callahan TJ, Laraway B, Antonescu C, Coleman B, Gargano M: Generalisable long COVID subtypes: findings from the NIH N3C and RECOVER programmes. EBioMedicine 2023;87.

Thaweethai T, Jolley SE, Karlson EW, Levitan EB, Levy B, McComsey GA, McCorkell L, Nadkarni GN, Parthasarathy S, Singh U. Development of a definition of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA. 2023;329(22):1934–46.

Brown DA, O’Brien KK. Conceptualising Long COVID as an episodic health condition. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(9): e007004.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tate WP, Walker MO, Peppercorn K, Blair AL, Edgar CD. Towards a Better Understanding of the Complexities of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long COVID. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5124.

Ahmed H, Patel K, Greenwood DC, Halpin S, Lewthwaite P, Salawu A, Eyre L, Breen A, Connor RO, Jones A. Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2020;52(5):1–11.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organisation: Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: Interim guidance (13th March 2020). Geneva: WHO. Accessed 3rd January 2023 at https://t.co/JpNdP8LcV8?amp=1 ; 2020.

Rushforth A, Ladds E, Wieringa S, Taylor S, Husain L, Greenhalgh T: Long Covid – the illness narratives. Under review for Sociology of Health and Illness 2021.

Russell D, Spence NJ. Chase J-AD, Schwartz T, Tumminello CM, Bouldin E: Support amid uncertainty: Long COVID illness experiences and the role of online communities. SSM-Qual Res Health. 2022;2: 100177.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ziauddeen N, Gurdasani D, O’Hara ME, Hastie C, Roderick P, Yao G, Alwan NA. Characteristics and impact of Long Covid: Findings from an online survey. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3): e0264331.

Evans RA, McAuley H, Harrison EM, Shikotra A, Singapuri A, Sereno M, Elneima O, Docherty AB, Lone NI, Leavy OC. Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(11):1275–87.

Sykes DL, Holdsworth L, Jawad N, Gunasekera P, Morice AH, Crooks MG. Post-COVID-19 symptom burden: what is long-COVID and how should we manage it? Lung. 2021;199(2):113–9.

Altmann DM, Whettlock EM, Liu S, Arachchillage DJ, Boyton RJ: The immunology of long COVID. Nat Rev Immunol 2023:1–17.

Klein J, Wood J, Jaycox J, Dhodapkar RM, Lu P, Gehlhausen JR, Tabachnikova A, Greene K, Tabacof L, Malik AA et al : Distinguishing features of Long COVID identified through immune profiling. Nature 2023.

Chen B, Julg B, Mohandas S, Bradfute SB. Viral persistence, reactivation, and mechanisms of long COVID. Elife. 2023;12: e86015.

Wang C, Ramasamy A, Verduzco-Gutierrez M, Brode WM, Melamed E. Acute and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a review of risk factors and social determinants. Virol J. 2023;20(1):124.

Cervia-Hasler C, Brüningk SC, Hoch T, Fan B, Muzio G, Thompson RC, Ceglarek L, Meledin R, Westermann P, Emmenegger M et al Persistent complement dysregulation with signs of thromboinflammation in active Long Covid Science 2024;383(6680):eadg7942.

Sivan M, Greenhalgh T, Darbyshire JL, Mir G, O’Connor RJ, Dawes H, Greenwood D, O’Connor D, Horton M, Petrou S. LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5): e063505.

Rushforth A, Ladds E, Wieringa S, Taylor S, Husain L, Greenhalgh T. Long covid–the illness narratives. Soc Sci Med. 2021;286: 114326.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19, vol. Accessed 4th October 2023 at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-the-longterm-effects-of-covid19-pdf-51035515742 . London: NICE 2020.

NHS England: Long COVID: the NHS plan for 2021/22. London: NHS England. Accessed 2nd August 2022 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/documents/long-covid-the-nhs-plan-for-2021-22/ ; 2021.

NHS England: NHS to offer ‘long covid’ sufferers help at specialist centres. London: NHS England. Accessed 10th October 2020 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-to-offer-long-covid-help/ ; 2020 (7th October).

NHS England: The NHS plan for improving long COVID services, vol. Acessed 4th February 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/the-nhs-plan-for-improving-long-covid-services/ .London: Gov.uk; 2022.

NHS England: Commissioning guidance for post-COVID services for adults, children and young people, vol. Accessed 6th February 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/commissioning-guidance-for-post-covid-services-for-adults-children-and-young-people/ . London: gov.uk; 2023.

National Institute for Health Research: Researching Long Covid: Adressing a new global health challenge, vol. Accessed 9.8.23 at https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/collection/researching-long-covid-addressing-a-new-global-health-challenge/ . London: NIHR; 2022.

Subbaraman N. NIH will invest $1 billion to study long COVID. Nature. 2021;591(7850):356–356.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment and monitoring. Ann Arbor: Michigan; 1980.

Laffel G, Blumenthal D. The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations. JAMA. 1989;262(20):2869–73.

Maxwell RJ. Quality assessment in health. BMJ. 1984;288(6428):1470.

Berwick DM, Godfrey BA, Roessner J. Curing health care: New strategies for quality improvement. The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ). 1991;13(5):65–6.

Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1986.

Argyris C: Increasing leadership effectiveness: New York: J. Wiley; 1976.

Juran JM: A history of managing for quality: The evolution, trends, and future directions of managing for quality: Asq Press; 1995.

Institute of Medicine (US): Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

McNab D, McKay J, Shorrock S, Luty S, Bowie P. Development and application of ‘systems thinking’ principles for quality improvement. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9(1): e000714.

Sampath B, Rakover J, Baldoza K, Mate K, Lenoci-Edwards J, Barker P. ​Whole-System Quality: A Unified Approach to Building Responsive, Resilient Health Care Systems. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Immprovement; 2021.

Batalden PB, Davidoff F: What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? In . , vol. 16: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2007: 2–3.

Baker G. Collaborating for improvement: the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s breakthrough series. New Med. 1997;1:5–8.

Plsek PE. Collaborating across organizational boundaries to improve the quality of care. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(2):85–95.

Ayers LR, Beyea SC, Godfrey MM, Harper DC, Nelson EC, Batalden PB. Quality improvement learning collaboratives. Qual Manage Healthcare. 2005;14(4):234–47.

Brandrud AS, Schreiner A, Hjortdahl P, Helljesen GS, Nyen B, Nelson EC. Three success factors for continual improvement in healthcare: an analysis of the reports of improvement team members. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(3):251–9.

Dückers ML, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP. Exploring the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: modelling relations between conditions, applied changes and outcomes. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–12.

Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2013;91(2):354–94.

Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M, Pearson ML, Wu S-Y, Mendel P, Cretin S, Rosen M: The role of perceived team effectiveness in improving chronic illness care. Medical Care 2004:1040–1048.

Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary PD. What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Joint Commission J Qual Safety. 2004;30:25–33.

Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, Huijsman R, Grol RP. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–4.

Hulscher ME, Schouten LM, Grol RP, Buchan H. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(1):19–31.

Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):167–205.

Bate P, Mendel P, Robert G: Organizing for quality: the improvement journeys of leading hospitals in Europe and the United States: CRC Press; 2007.

Andersson-Gäre B, Neuhauser D. The health care quality journey of Jönköping County Council. Sweden Qual Manag Health Care. 2007;16(1):2–9.

Törnblom O, Stålne K, Kjellström S. Analyzing roles and leadership in organizations from cognitive complexity and meaning-making perspectives. Behav Dev. 2018;23(1):63.

Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why Do Evaluations of eHealth Programs Fail? An Alternative Set of Guiding Principles. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11): e1000360.

Wells S, Tamir O, Gray J, Naidoo D, Bekhit M, Goldmann D. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(3):226–40.

Landon BE, Wilson IB, McInnes K, Landrum MB, Hirschhorn L, Marsden PV, Gustafson D, Cleary PD. Effects of a quality improvement collaborative on the outcome of care of patients with HIV infection: the EQHIV study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(11):887–96.

Mittman BS. Creating the evidence base for quality improvement collaboratives. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(11):897–901.

Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):961–4.

Bungay H. Cancer and health policy: the postcode lottery of care. Soc Policy Admin. 2005;39(1):35–48.

Wennberg JE, Cooper MM: The Quality of Medical Care in the United States: A Report on the Medicare Program: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999: The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences [Internet]. 1999.

DaSilva P, Gray JM. English lessons: can publishing an atlas of variation stimulate the discussion on appropriateness of care? Med J Aust. 2016;205(S10):S5–7.

Gray WK, Day J, Briggs TW, Harrison S. Identifying unwarranted variation in clinical practice between healthcare providers in England: Analysis of administrative data over time for the Getting It Right First Time programme. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(4):743–50.

Wabe N, Thomas J, Scowen C, Eigenstetter A, Lindeman R, Georgiou A. The NSW Pathology Atlas of Variation: Part I—Identifying Emergency Departments With Outlying Laboratory Test-Ordering Practices. Ann Emerg Med. 2021;78(1):150–62.

Jamal A, Babazono A, Li Y, Fujita T, Yoshida S, Kim SA. Elucidating variations in outcomes among older end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5): e0252196.

Sutherland K, Levesque JF. Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: definitions and proposal of an analytic framework. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(3):687–96.

Tanenbaum SJ. Reducing variation in health care: The rhetorical politics of a policy idea. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(1):5–26.

Atsma F, Elwyn G, Westert G. Understanding unwarranted variation in clinical practice: a focus on network effects, reflective medicine and learning health systems. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;32(4):271–4.

Horbar JD, Rogowski J, Plsek PE, Delmore P, Edwards WH, Hocker J, Kantak AD, Lewallen P, Lewis W, Lewit E. Collaborative quality improvement for neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics. 2001;107(1):14–22.

Van Maanen J: Tales of the field: On writing ethnography: University of Chicago Press; 2011.

Golden-Biddle K, Locke K. Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organ Sci. 1993;4(4):595–616.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12:436–45.

Willis R. The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qual Res. 2019;19(4):471–80.

Vojdani A, Vojdani E, Saidara E, Maes M. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection, EBV, HHV-6 and other factors may contribute to inflammation and autoimmunity in long COVID. Viruses. 2023;15(2):400.

Choutka J, Jansari V, Hornig M, Iwasaki A. Unexplained post-acute infection syndromes. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):911–23.

Connors JM, Ariëns RAS. Uncertainties about the roles of anticoagulation and microclots in postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. J Thromb Haemost. 2023;21(10):2697–701.

Patel MA, Knauer MJ, Nicholson M, Daley M, Van Nynatten LR, Martin C, Patterson EK, Cepinskas G, Seney SL, Dobretzberger V. Elevated vascular transformation blood biomarkers in Long-COVID indicate angiogenesis as a key pathophysiological mechanism. Mol Med. 2022;28(1):122.

Greenhalgh T, Sivan M, Delaney B, Evans R, Milne R: Long covid—an update for primary care. bmj 2022, 378.

Parkin A, Davison J, Tarrant R, Ross D, Halpin S, Simms A, Salman R, Sivan M. A multidisciplinary NHS COVID-19 service to manage post-COVID-19 syndrome in the community. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2021;12:21501327211010990.

NHS England: COVID-19 Post-Covid Assessment Service, vol. Accessed 5th March 2024 at https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-post-covid-assessment-service/ . London: NHS England; 2024.

Sivan M, Halpin S, Gee J, Makower S, Parkin A, Ross D, Horton M, O'Connor R: The self-report version and digital format of the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRS) for Long Covid or Post-COVID syndrome assessment and monitoring. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil 2021;20(3).

The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

Sivan M, Preston NJ, Parkin A, Makower S, Gee J, Ross D, Tarrant R, Davison J, Halpin S, O’Connor RJ, et al. The modified COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRSm) patient-reported outcome measure for Long Covid or Post-COVID syndrome. J Med Virol. 2022;94(9):4253–64.

Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 1991;14(6):540–5.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

Van Dixhoorn J, Duivenvoorden H. Efficacy of Nijmegen Questionnaire in recognition of the hyperventilation syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1985;29(2):199–206.

Evans R, Pick A, Lardner R, Masey V, Smith N, Greenhalgh T: Breathing difficulties after covid-19: a guide for primary care. BMJ 2023;381.

Van Dixhoorn J, Folgering H: The Nijmegen Questionnaire and dysfunctional breathing. In . , vol. 1: Eur Respiratory Soc; 2015.

Courtney R, Greenwood KM. Preliminary investigation of a measure of dysfunctional breathing symptoms: The Self Evaluation of Breathing Questionnaire (SEBQ). Int J Osteopathic Med. 2009;12(4):121–7.

Espinosa-Gonzalez A, Master H, Gall N, Halpin S, Rogers N, Greenhalgh T. Orthostatic tachycardia after covid-19. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2023;380:e073488–e073488.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bungo M, Charles J, Johnson P Jr. Cardiovascular deconditioning during space flight and the use of saline as a countermeasure to orthostatic intolerance. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1985;56(10):985–90.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sivan M, Corrado J, Mathias C. The Adapted Autonomic Profile (Aap) Home-Based Test for the Evaluation of Neuro-Cardiovascular Autonomic Dysfunction. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil. 2022;3:10–13. https://doi.org/10.47795/QKBU46715 .

Lee C, Greenwood DC, Master H, Balasundaram K, Williams P, Scott JT, Wood C, Cooper R, Darbyshire JL, Gonzalez AE. Prevalence of orthostatic intolerance in long covid clinic patients and healthy volunteers: A multicenter study. J Med Virol. 2024;96(3): e29486.

World Health Organization: Clinical management of covid-19 - living guideline. Geneva: WHO. Accessed 4th October 2023 at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021-2 ; 2023.

Ahmed I, Mustafaoglu R, Yeldan I, Yasaci Z, Erhan B: Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation approaches on dyspnea, exercise capacity, fatigue, lung functions and quality of life in patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022.

Dillen H, Bekkering G, Gijsbers S, Vande Weygaerde Y, Van Herck M, Haesevoets S, Bos DAG, Li A, Janssens W, Gosselink R, et al. Clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation in ambulatory care for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):419.

Learmonth Y, Dlugonski D, Pilutti L, Sandroff B, Klaren R, Motl R. Psychometric properties of the fatigue severity scale and the modified fatigue impact scale. J Neurol Sci. 2013;331(1–2):102–7.

Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness T herapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):1–7.

Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, Greist JM. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180(5):461–4.

Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, Wallace E. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993;37(2):147–53.

Shahid A, Wilkinson K, Marcu S, Shapiro CM: Visual analogue scale to evaluate fatigue severity (VAS-F). In: STOP, THAT and one hundred other sleep scales . edn.: Springer; 2011:399–402.

Parker M, Sawant HB, Flannery T, Tarrant R, Shardha J, Bannister R, Ross D, Halpin S, Greenwood DC, Sivan M. Effect of using a structured pacing protocol on post-exertional symptom exacerbation and health status in a longitudinal cohort with the post-COVID-19 syndrome. J Med Virol. 2023;95(1): e28373.

Kenny RA, Bayliss J, Ingram A, Sutton R. Head-up tilt: a useful test for investigating unexplained syncope. The Lancet. 1986;327(8494):1352–5.

Drury MOC: Science and Psychology. In: The selected writings of Maurice O’Connor Drury: On Wittgenstein, philosophy, religion and psychiatry. edn.: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017.

Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.

Mongtomery K: How doctors think: Clinical judgment and the practice of medicine: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to clinic staff for allowing us to study their work and to patients for allowing us to sit in on their consultations. We also thank the funder of LOCOMOTION (National Institute for Health Research) and the patient advisory group for lived experience input.

This research is supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Long Covid Research Scheme grant (Ref COV-LT-0016).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK

Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie L. Darbyshire & Emma Ladds

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

LOCOMOTION Patient Advisory Group and Lived Experience Representative, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TG conceptualized the overall study, led the empirical work, supported the quality improvement meetings, conducted the ethnographic visits, led the data analysis, developed the theorization and wrote the first draft of the paper. JLD organized and led the quality improvement meetings, supported site-based researchers to collect and analyse data on their clinic, collated and summarized data on quality topics, and liaised with the patient advisory group. CL conceptualized and led the quality topic on POTS, including exploring reasons for some clinics’ reluctance to conduct testing and collating and analysing the NASA Lean Test data across all sites. EL assisted with ethnographic visits, data analysis, and theorization. JCS contributed lived experience of long covid and also clinical experience as an occupational therapist; she liaised with the wider patient advisory group, whose independent (patient-led) audit of long covid clinics informed the quality improvement prioritization exercise. All authors provided extensive feedback on drafts and contributed to discussions and refinements. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trisha Greenhalgh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276) and subsequent amendments.

Patient participants in clinic were approached by the clinician (without the researcher present) and gave verbal informed consent for a clinically qualified researcher to observe the consultation. If they consented, the researcher was then invited to sit in. A written record was made in field notes of this verbal consent. It was impractical to seek consent from patients whose cases were discussed (usually with very brief clinical details) in online MDTs. Therefore, clinical case examples from MDTs presented in the paper are fictionalized cases constructed from multiple real cases and with key clinical details changed (for example, comorbidities were replaced with different conditions which would produce similar symptoms). All fictionalized cases were checked by our patient advisory group to check that they were plausible to lived experience experts.

Consent for publication

No direct patient cases are reported in this manuscript. For details of how the fictionalized cases were constructed and validated, see “Consent to participate” above.

Competing interests

TG was a member of the UK National Long Covid Task Force 2021–2023 and on the Oversight Group for the NICE Guideline on Long Covid 2021–2022. She is a member of Independent SAGE.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Greenhalgh, T., Darbyshire, J.L., Lee, C. et al. What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography. BMC Med 22 , 159 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03371-6

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 15 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03371-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Post-covid-19 syndrome
• Quality improvement
• Breakthrough collaboratives
• Warranted variation
• Unwarranted variation
• Improvement science
• Ethnography
• Idiographic reasoning
• Nomothetic reasoning

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

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

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Qualitative Secondary Analysis: A Case Exemplar

Judith ann tate.

The Ohio State University, College of Nursing

Mary Beth Happ

Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) is the use of qualitative data collected by someone else or to answer a different research question. Secondary analysis of qualitative data provides an opportunity to maximize data utility particularly with difficult to reach patient populations. However, QSA methods require careful consideration and explicit description to best understand, contextualize, and evaluate the research results. In this paper, we describe methodologic considerations using a case exemplar to illustrate challenges specific to QSA and strategies to overcome them.

Health care research requires significant time and resources. Secondary analysis of existing data provides an efficient alternative to collecting data from new groups or the same subjects. Secondary analysis, defined as the reuse of existing data to investigate a different research question ( Heaton, 2004 ), has a similar purpose whether the data are quantitative or qualitative. Common goals include to (1) perform additional analyses on the original dataset, (2) analyze a subset of the original data, (3) apply a new perspective or focus to the original data, or (4) validate or expand findings from the original analysis ( Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-Steffen, 1997 ). Synthesis of knowledge from meta-analysis or aggregation may be viewed as an additional purpose of secondary analysis ( Heaton, 2004 ).

Qualitative studies utilize several different data sources, such as interviews, observations, field notes, archival meeting minutes or clinical record notes, to produce rich descriptions of human experiences within a social context. The work typically requires significant resources (e.g., personnel effort/time) for data collection and analysis. When feasible, qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) can be a useful and cost-effective alternative to designing and conducting redundant primary studies. With advances in computerized data storage and analysis programs, sharing qualitative datasets has become easier. However, little guidance is available for conducting, structuring procedures, or evaluating QSA ( Szabo & Strang, 1997 ).

QSA has been described as “an almost invisible enterprise in social research” ( Fielding, 2004 ). Primary data is often re-used; however, descriptions of this practice are embedded within the methods section of qualitative research reports rather than explicitly identified as QSA. Moreover, searching or classifying reports as QSA is difficult because many researchers refrain from identifying their work as secondary analyses ( Hinds et al., 1997 ; Thorne, 1998a ). In this paper, we provide an overview of QSA, the purposes, and modes of data sharing and approaches. A unique, expanded QSA approach is presented as a methodological exemplar to illustrate considerations.

QSA Typology

Heaton (2004) classified QSA studies based on the relationship between the secondary and primary questions and the scope of data analyzed. Types of QSA included studies that (1) investigated questions different from the primary study, (2) applied a unique theoretical perspective, or (3) extended the primary work. Heaton’s literature review (2004) showed that studies varied in the choice of data used, from selected portions to entire or combined datasets.

Modes of Data Sharing

Heaton (2004) identified three modes of data sharing: formal, informal and auto-data. Formal data sharing involves accessing and analyzing deposited or archived qualitative data by an independent group of researchers. Historical research often uses formal data sharing. Informal data sharing refers to requests for direct access to an investigator’s data for use alone or to pool with other data, usually as a result of informal networking. In some instances, the primary researchers may be invited to collaborate. The most common mode of data sharing is auto-data, defined as further exploration of a qualitative data set by the primary research team. Due to the iterative nature of qualitative research, when using auto-data, it may be difficult to determine where the original study questions end and discrete, distinct analysis begins ( Heaton, 1998 ).

An Exemplar QSA

Below we describe a QSA exemplar conducted by the primary author of this paper (JT), a member of the original research team, who used a supplementary approach to examine concepts revealed but not fully investigated in the primary study. First, we describe an overview of the original study on which the QSA was based. Then, the exemplar QSA is presented to illustrate: (1) the use of auto-data when the new research questions are closely related to or extend the original study aims ( Table 1 ), (2) the collection of additional clinical record data to supplement the original dataset and (3) the performance of separate member checking in the form of expert review and opinion. Considerations and recommendations for use of QSA are reviewed with illustrations taken from the exemplar study ( Table 2 ). Finally, discussion of conclusions and implications is included to assist with planning and implementation of QSA studies.

Research question comparison

Application of the Exemplar Qualitative Secondary Analysis (QSA)

Aitken, L. M., Marshall, A. P., Elliott, R., & McKinley, S. (2009). Critical care nurses' decision making: sedation assessment and management in intensive care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18 (1), 36–45.

Morse, J., & Field, P. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Patel, R. P., Gambrell, M., Speroff, T.,…Strength, C. (2009). Delirium and sedation in the intensive care unit: Survey of behaviors and attitudes of 1384 healthcare professionals. Critical Care Medicine, 37 (3), 825–832.

Shehabi, Y., Botha, J. A., Boyle, M. S., Ernest, D., Freebairn, R. C., Jenkins, I. R., … Seppelt, I. M. (2008). Sedation and delirium in the intensive care unit: an Australian and New Zealand perspective. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, 36 (4), 570–578.

Tanios, M. A., de Wit, M., Epstein, S. K., & Devlin, J. W. (2009). Perceived barriers to the use of sedation protocols and daily sedation interruption: a multidisciplinary survey. Journal of Critical Care, 24 (1), 66–73.

Weinert, C. R., & Calvin, A. D. (2007). Epidemiology of sedation and sedation adequacy for mechanically ventilated patients in a medical and surgical intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine , 35(2), 393–401.

The Primary Study

Briefly, the original study was a micro-level ethnography designed to describe the processes of care and communication with patients weaning from prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) in a 28-bed Medical Intensive Care Unit ( Broyles, Colbert, Tate, & Happ, 2008 ; Happ, Swigart, Tate, Arnold, Sereika, & Hoffman, 2007 ; Happ et al, 2007 , 2010 ). Both the primary study and the QSA were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pittsburgh. Data were collected by two experienced investigators and a PhD student-research project coordinator. Data sources consisted of sustained field observations, interviews with patients, family members and clinicians, and clinical record review, including all narrative clinical documentation recorded by direct caregivers.

During iterative data collection and analysis in the original study, it became apparent that anxiety and agitation had an effect on the duration of ventilator weaning episodes, an observation that helped to formulate the questions for the QSA ( Tate, Dabbs, Hoffman, Milbrandt & Happ, 2012 ). Thus, the secondary topic was closely aligned as an important facet of the primary phenomenon. The close, natural relationship between the primary and QSA research questions is demonstrated in the side-by-side comparison in Table 1 . This QSA focused on new questions which extended the original study to recognition and management of anxiety or agitation, behaviors that often accompany mechanical ventilation and weaning but occur throughout the trajectory of critical illness and recovery.

Considerations when Undertaking QSA ( Table 2 )

Practical advantages.

A key practical advantage of QSA is maximizing use of existing data. Data collection efforts represent a significant percentage of the research budget in terms of cost and labor ( Coyer & Gallo, 2005 ). This is particularly important in view of the competition for research funding. Planning and implementing a qualitative study involves considerable time and expertise not only for data collecting (e.g., interviews, participant observation or focus group), but in establishing access, credibility and relationships ( Thorne, 1994 ) and in conducting the analysis. The cost of QSA is often seen as negligible since the outlay of resources for data collection is assumed by the original study. However, QSA incurs costs related to storage, researcher’s effort for review of existing data, analysis, and any further data collection that may be necessary.

Another advantage of QSA is access to data from an assembled cohort. In conducting original primary research, practical concerns arise when participants are difficult to locate or reluctant to divulge sensitive details to a researcher. In the case of vulnerable critically ill patients, participation in research may seem an unnecessary burden to family members who may be unwilling to provide proxy consent ( Fielding, 2004 ). QSA permits new questions to be asked of data collected previously from these vulnerable groups ( Rew, Koniak-Griffin, Lewis, Miles, & O'Sullivan, 2000 ), or from groups or events that occur with scarcity ( Thorne, 1994 ). Participants’ time and effort in the primary study therefore becomes more worthwhile. In fact, it is recommended that data already collected from existing studies of vulnerable populations or about sensitive topics be analyzed prior to engaging new participants. In this way, QSA becomes a cumulative rather than a repetitive process ( Fielding, 2004 ).

Data Adequacy and Congruency

Secondary researchers must determine that the primary data set meets the needs of the QSA. Data may be insufficient to answer a new question or the focus of the QSA may be so different as to render the pursuit of a QSA impossible ( Heaton, 1998 ). The underlying assumptions, sampling plan, research questions, and conceptual framework selected to answer the original study question may not fit the question posed during QSA ( Coyer & Gallo, 2005 ). The researchers of the primary study may have selectively sampled participants and analyzed the resulting data in a manner that produced a narrow or uneven scope of data ( Hinds et al., 1997 ). Thus, the data needed to fully answer questions posed by the QSA may be inadequately addressed in the primary study. A critical review of the existing dataset is an important first step in determining whether the primary data fits the secondary questions ( Hinds et al., 1997 ).

Passage of Time

The timing of the QSA is another important consideration. If the primary study and secondary study are performed sequentially, findings of the original study may influence the secondary study. On the other hand, studies performed concurrently offer the benefit of access to both the primary research team and participants member checking ( Hinds et al., 1997 ).

The passage of time since the primary study was conducted can also have a distinct effect on the usefulness of the primary dataset. Data may be outdated or contain a historical bias ( Coyer & Gallo, 2005 ). Since context changes over time, characteristics of the phenomena of interest may have changed. Analysis of older datasets may not illuminate the phenomena as they exist today.( Hinds et al., 1997 ) Even if participants could be re-contacted, their perspectives, memories and experiences change. The passage of time also has an affect on the relationship of the primary researchers to the data – so auto-data may be interpreted differently by the same researcher with the passage of time. Data are bound by time and history, therefore, may be a threat to internal validity unless a new investigator is able to account for these effects when interpreting data ( Rew et al., 2000 ).

Researcher stance/Context involvement

Issues related to context are a major source of criticism of QSA ( Gladstone, Volpe, & Boydell, 2007 ). One of the hallmarks of qualitative research is the relationship of the researcher to the participants. It can be argued that removing active contact with participants violates this premise. Tacit understandings developed in the field may be difficult or impossible to reconstruct ( Thorne, 1994 ). Qualitative fieldworkers often react and redirect the data collection based on a growing knowledge of the setting. The setting may change as a result of external or internal factors. Interpretation of researchers as participants in a unique time and social context may be impossible to re-construct even if the secondary researchers were members of the primary team ( Mauthner, Parry, & Milburn, 1998 ). Because the context in which the data were originally produced cannot be recovered, the ability of the researcher to react to the lived experience may be curtailed in QSA ( Gladstone et al., 2007 ). Researchers utilize a number of tactics to filter and prioritize what to include as data that may not be apparent in either the written or spoken records of those events ( Thorne, 1994 ). Reflexivity between the researcher, participants and setting is impossible to recreate when examining pre-existing data.

Relationship of QSA Researcher to Primary Study

The relationship of the QSA researcher to the primary study is an important consideration. When the QSA researcher is not part of the original study team, contractual arrangements detailing access to data, its format, access to the original team, and authorship are required ( Hinds et al., 1997 ). The QSA researcher should assess the condition of the data, documents including transcripts, memos and notes, and clarity and flow of interactions ( Hinds et al., 1997 ). An outline of the original study and data collection procedures should be critically reviewed ( Heaton, 1998 ). If the secondary researcher was not a member of the original study team, access to the original investigative team for the purpose of ongoing clarification is essential ( Hinds et al., 1997 ).

Membership on the original study team may, however, offer the secondary researcher little advantage depending on their role in the primary study. Some research team members may have had responsibility for only one type of data collection or data source. There may be differences in involvement with analysis of the primary data.

Informed Consent of Participants

Thorne (1998) questioned whether data collected for one study purpose can ethically be re-examined to answer another question without participants’ consent. Many institutional review boards permit consent forms to include language about the possibility of future use of existing data. While this mechanism is becoming routine and welcomed by researchers, concerns have been raised that a generic consent cannot possibly address all future secondary questions and may violate the principle of full informed consent ( Gladstone et al., 2007 ). Local variations in study approval practices by institutional review boards may influence the ability of researchers to conduct a QSA.

Rigor of QSA

The primary standards for evaluating rigor of qualitative studies are trustworthiness (logical relationship between the data and the analytic claims), fit (the context within which the findings are applicable), transferability (the overall generalizability of the claims) and auditabilty (the transparency of the procedural steps and the analytic moves processes) ( Lincoln & Guba, 1991 ). Thorne suggests that standard procedures for assuring rigor can be modified for QSA ( Thorne, 1994 ). For instance, the original researchers may be viewed as sources of confirmation while new informants, other related datasets and validation by clinical experts are sources of triangulation that may overcome the lack of access to primary subjects ( Heaton, 2004 ; Thorne, 1994 ).

Our observations, derived from the experience of posing a new question of existing qualitative data serves as a template for researchers considering QSA. Considerations regarding quality, availability and appropriateness of existing data are of primary importance. A realistic plan for collecting additional data to answer questions posed in QSA should consider burden and resources for data collection, analysis, storage and maintenance. Researchers should consider context as a potential limitation to new analyses. Finally, the cost of QSA should be fully evaluated prior to making a decision to pursue QSA.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research (RO1-NR07973, M Happ PI) and a Clinical Practice Grant from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (JA Tate, PI).

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Disclosure statement: Drs. Tate and Happ have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose that relate to the content of this manuscript and do not anticipate conflicts in the foreseeable future.

Contributor Information

Judith Ann Tate, The Ohio State University, College of Nursing.

Mary Beth Happ, The Ohio State University, College of Nursing.

• Broyles L, Colbert A, Tate J, Happ MB. Clinicians’ evaluation and management of mental health, substance abuse, and chronic pain conditions in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine. 2008; 36 (1):87–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyer SM, Gallo AM. Secondary analysis of data. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 2005; 19 (1):60–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fielding N. Getting the most from archived qualitative data: Epistemological, practical and professional obstacles. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (1):97–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladstone BM, Volpe T, Boydell KM. Issues encountered in a qualitative secondary analysis of help-seeking in the prodrome to psychosis. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2007; 34 (4):431–442. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Happ MB, Swigart VA, Tate JA, Arnold RM, Sereika SM, Hoffman LA. Family presence and surveillance during weaning from prolonged mechanical ventilation. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care. 2007; 36 (1):47–57. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Happ MB, Swigart VA, Tate JA, Hoffman LA, Arnold RM. Patient involvement in health-related decisions during prolonged critical illness. Research in Nursing & Health. 2007; 30 (4):361–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Happ MB, Tate JA, Swigart V, DiVirgilio-Thomas D, Hoffman LA. Wash and wean: Bathing patients undergoing weaning trials during prolonged mechanical ventilation. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care. 2010; 39 (6 Suppl):S47–56. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaton J. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Social Research Update. 1998;(22) [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaton J. Reworking Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinds PS, Vogel RJ, Clarke-Steffen L. The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research. 1997; 7 (3):408–424. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauthner N, Parry O, Milburn K. The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data. Sociology. 1998; 32 :733–745. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rew L, Koniak-Griffin D, Lewis MA, Miles M, O'Sullivan A. Secondary data analysis: new perspective for adolescent research. Nursing Outlook. 2000; 48 (5):223–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szabo V, Strang VR. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Advances in Nursing Science. 1997; 20 (2):66–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tate JA, Dabbs AD, Hoffman LA, Milbrandt E, Happ MB. Anxiety and agitation in mechanically ventilated patients. Qualitative health research. 2012; 22 (2):157–173. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S. Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issues and implications. In: Morse JM, editor. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research. Second. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S. Ethical and representational issues in qualitative secondary analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 1998; 8 (4):547–555. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]