the pros of case study

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

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

Business Insights

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

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

5 Benefits of Learning Through the Case Study Method

• 28 Nov 2023

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

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

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

Access your free e-book today.

What Is the Harvard Business School Case Study Method?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Benefits of Learning Through Case Studies

1. take new perspectives.

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

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

2. Hone Your Decision-Making Skills

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

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

3. Become More Open-Minded

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Enhance Your Curiosity

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

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

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

5. Build Your Self-Confidence

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

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

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

How to Experience the Case Study Method

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

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

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

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

About the Author

10 Case Study Advantages and Disadvantages

A case study in academic research is a detailed and in-depth examination of a specific instance or event, generally conducted through a qualitative approach to data.

The most common case study definition that I come across is is Robert K. Yin’s (2003, p. 13) quote provided below:

“An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”

Researchers conduct case studies for a number of reasons, such as to explore complex phenomena within their real-life context, to look at a particularly interesting instance of a situation, or to dig deeper into something of interest identified in a wider-scale project.

While case studies render extremely interesting data, they have many limitations and are not suitable for all studies. One key limitation is that a case study’s findings are not usually generalizable to broader populations because one instance cannot be used to infer trends across populations.

Case Study Advantages and Disadvantages

1. in-depth analysis of complex phenomena.

Case study design allows researchers to delve deeply into intricate issues and situations.

By focusing on a specific instance or event, researchers can uncover nuanced details and layers of understanding that might be missed with other research methods, especially large-scale survey studies.

As Lee and Saunders (2017) argue,

“It allows that particular event to be studies in detail so that its unique qualities may be identified.”

This depth of analysis can provide rich insights into the underlying factors and dynamics of the studied phenomenon.

2. Holistic Understanding

Building on the above point, case studies can help us to understand a topic holistically and from multiple angles.

This means the researcher isn’t restricted to just examining a topic by using a pre-determined set of questions, as with questionnaires. Instead, researchers can use qualitative methods to delve into the many different angles, perspectives, and contextual factors related to the case study.

We can turn to Lee and Saunders (2017) again, who notes that case study researchers “develop a deep, holistic understanding of a particular phenomenon” with the intent of deeply understanding the phenomenon.

3. Examination of rare and Unusual Phenomena

We need to use case study methods when we stumble upon “rare and unusual” (Lee & Saunders, 2017) phenomena that would tend to be seen as mere outliers in population studies.

Take, for example, a child genius. A population study of all children of that child’s age would merely see this child as an outlier in the dataset, and this child may even be removed in order to predict overall trends.

So, to truly come to an understanding of this child and get insights into the environmental conditions that led to this child’s remarkable cognitive development, we need to do an in-depth study of this child specifically – so, we’d use a case study.

4. Helps Reveal the Experiences of Marginalzied Groups

Just as rare and unsual cases can be overlooked in population studies, so too can the experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of marginalized groups.

As Lee and Saunders (2017) argue, “case studies are also extremely useful in helping the expression of the voices of people whose interests are often ignored.”

Take, for example, the experiences of minority populations as they navigate healthcare systems. This was for many years a “hidden” phenomenon, not examined by researchers. It took case study designs to truly reveal this phenomenon, which helped to raise practitioners’ awareness of the importance of cultural sensitivity in medicine.

5. Ideal in Situations where Researchers cannot Control the Variables

Experimental designs – where a study takes place in a lab or controlled environment – are excellent for determining cause and effect . But not all studies can take place in controlled environments (Tetnowski, 2015).

When we’re out in the field doing observational studies or similar fieldwork, we don’t have the freedom to isolate dependent and independent variables. We need to use alternate methods.

Case studies are ideal in such situations.

A case study design will allow researchers to deeply immerse themselves in a setting (potentially combining it with methods such as ethnography or researcher observation) in order to see how phenomena take place in real-life settings.

6. Supports the generation of new theories or hypotheses

While large-scale quantitative studies such as cross-sectional designs and population surveys are excellent at testing theories and hypotheses on a large scale, they need a hypothesis to start off with!

This is where case studies – in the form of grounded research – come in. Often, a case study doesn’t start with a hypothesis. Instead, it ends with a hypothesis based upon the findings within a singular setting.

The deep analysis allows for hypotheses to emerge, which can then be taken to larger-scale studies in order to conduct further, more generalizable, testing of the hypothesis or theory.

7. Reveals the Unexpected

When a largescale quantitative research project has a clear hypothesis that it will test, it often becomes very rigid and has tunnel-vision on just exploring the hypothesis.

Of course, a structured scientific examination of the effects of specific interventions targeted at specific variables is extermely valuable.

But narrowly-focused studies often fail to shine a spotlight on unexpected and emergent data. Here, case studies come in very useful. Oftentimes, researchers set their eyes on a phenomenon and, when examining it closely with case studies, identify data and come to conclusions that are unprecedented, unforeseen, and outright surprising.

As Lars Meier (2009, p. 975) marvels, “where else can we become a part of foreign social worlds and have the chance to become aware of the unexpected?”

Disadvantages

1. not usually generalizable.

Case studies are not generalizable because they tend not to look at a broad enough corpus of data to be able to infer that there is a trend across a population.

As Yang (2022) argues, “by definition, case studies can make no claims to be typical.”

Case studies focus on one specific instance of a phenomenon. They explore the context, nuances, and situational factors that have come to bear on the case study. This is really useful for bringing to light important, new, and surprising information, as I’ve already covered.

But , it’s not often useful for generating data that has validity beyond the specific case study being examined.

2. Subjectivity in interpretation

Case studies usually (but not always) use qualitative data which helps to get deep into a topic and explain it in human terms, finding insights unattainable by quantitative data.

But qualitative data in case studies relies heavily on researcher interpretation. While researchers can be trained and work hard to focus on minimizing subjectivity (through methods like triangulation), it often emerges – some might argue it’s innevitable in qualitative studies.

So, a criticism of case studies could be that they’re more prone to subjectivity – and researchers need to take strides to address this in their studies.

3. Difficulty in replicating results

Case study research is often non-replicable because the study takes place in complex real-world settings where variables are not controlled.

So, when returning to a setting to re-do or attempt to replicate a study, we often find that the variables have changed to such an extent that replication is difficult. Furthermore, new researchers (with new subjective eyes) may catch things that the other readers overlooked.

Replication is even harder when researchers attempt to replicate a case study design in a new setting or with different participants.

Comprehension Quiz for Students

Question 1: What benefit do case studies offer when exploring the experiences of marginalized groups?

a) They provide generalizable data. b) They help express the voices of often-ignored individuals. c) They control all variables for the study. d) They always start with a clear hypothesis.

Question 2: Why might case studies be considered ideal for situations where researchers cannot control all variables?

a) They provide a structured scientific examination. b) They allow for generalizability across populations. c) They focus on one specific instance of a phenomenon. d) They allow for deep immersion in real-life settings.

Question 3: What is a primary disadvantage of case studies in terms of data applicability?

a) They always focus on the unexpected. b) They are not usually generalizable. c) They support the generation of new theories. d) They provide a holistic understanding.

Question 4: Why might case studies be considered more prone to subjectivity?

a) They always use quantitative data. b) They heavily rely on researcher interpretation, especially with qualitative data. c) They are always replicable. d) They look at a broad corpus of data.

Question 5: In what situations are experimental designs, such as those conducted in labs, most valuable?

a) When there’s a need to study rare and unusual phenomena. b) When a holistic understanding is required. c) When determining cause-and-effect relationships. d) When the study focuses on marginalized groups.

Question 6: Why is replication challenging in case study research?

a) Because they always use qualitative data. b) Because they tend to focus on a broad corpus of data. c) Due to the changing variables in complex real-world settings. d) Because they always start with a hypothesis.

Lee, B., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2017). Conducting Case Study Research for Business and Management Students. SAGE Publications.

Meir, L. (2009). Feasting on the Benefits of Case Study Research. In Mills, A. J., Wiebe, E., & Durepos, G. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Vol. 2). London: SAGE Publications.

Tetnowski, J. (2015). Qualitative case study research design.  Perspectives on fluency and fluency disorders ,  25 (1), 39-45. ( Source )

Yang, S. L. (2022). The War on Corruption in China: Local Reform and Innovation . Taylor & Francis.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

What the Case Study Method Really Teaches

• Nitin Nohria

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

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

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

• Nitin Nohria is the George F. Baker Jr. Professor at Harvard Business School and the former dean of HBS.

Partner Center

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

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

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Principles of Social Research Methodology pp 313–321 Cite as

• R. M. Channaveer 4 &
• Rajendra Baikady 5  
• First Online: 27 October 2022

2308 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter reviews the strengths and limitations of case study as a research method in social sciences. It provides an account of an evidence base to justify why a case study is best suitable for some research questions and why not for some other research questions. Case study designing around the research context, defining the structure and modality, conducting the study, collecting the data through triangulation mode, analysing the data, and interpreting the data and theory building at the end give a holistic view of it. In addition, the chapter also focuses on the types of case study and when and where to use case study as a research method in social science research.

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

Ang, C. S., Lee, K. F., & Dipolog-Ubanan, G. F. (2019). Determinants of first-year student identity and satisfaction in higher education: A quantitative case study. SAGE Open, 9 (2), 215824401984668. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846689

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2015). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report . Published. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

Bhatta, T. P. (2018). Case study research, philosophical position and theory building: A methodological discussion. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 12 , 72–79. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v12i0.22182

Article   Google Scholar  

Bromley, P. D. (1990). Academic contributions to psychological counselling. A philosophy of science for the study of individual cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly , 3 (3), 299–307.

Google Scholar  

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (1), 1–9.

Grässel, E., & Schirmer, B. (2006). The use of volunteers to support family carers of dementia patients: Results of a prospective longitudinal study investigating expectations towards and experience with training and professional support. Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie, 39 (3), 217–226.

Greenwood, D., & Lowenthal, D. (2005). Case study as a means of researching social work and improving practitioner education. Journal of Social Work Practice, 19 (2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530500144782

Gülseçen, S., & Kubat, A. (2006). Teaching ICT to teacher candidates using PBL: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9 (2), 96–106.

Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study and generalization. Case study method , 98–115.

Hamera, J., Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Performance ethnography . SAGE.

Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research (p. 133). Open University Press.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 18, No. 1).

Iwakabe, S., & Gazzola, N. (2009). From single-case studies to practice-based knowledge: Aggregating and synthesizing case studies. Psychotherapy Research, 19 (4–5), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802688494

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Decision models for the location of community corrections centers. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design, 33 (3), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3125

Kaarbo, J., & Beasley, R. K. (1999). A practical guide to the comparative case study method in political psychology. Political Psychology, 20 (2), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00149

Lovell, G. I. (2006). Justice excused: The deployment of law in everyday political encounters. Law Society Review, 40 (2), 283–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00265.x

McDonough, S., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods as part of English language teacher education. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 3 (1), 84–96.

Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16 (4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00023-0

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research . Sage Publications.

Ochieng, P. A. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century , 13 , 13.

Page, E. B., Webb, E. J., Campell, D. T., Schwart, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 3 (4), 317. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162043

Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18 , 160940691986242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424

Ridder, H. G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z

Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R., Ghasemnia Arabi, N., & Khoshsima, G. (2021). A Review of case study method in operations management research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20 , 160940692110100. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211010088

Sommer, B. B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques . Oxford University Press.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work .

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research . Sage Publications.

Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review, 39 (1), 88–112.

Suryani, A. (2013). Comparing case study and ethnography as qualitative research approaches .

Taylor, S., & Berridge, V. (2006). Medicinal plants and malaria: An historical case study of research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the twentieth century. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100 (8), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2005.11.017

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report . Published. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1997.2024

Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press Publications Sales Office.

Widdowson, M. D. J. (2011). Case study research methodology. International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research, 2 (1), 25–34.

Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology . Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Design and methods. Case Study Research , 3 (9.2).

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods . Sage Publications Beverly Hills.

Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research . Sage Publishing.

Zainal, Z. (2003). An investigation into the effects of discipline-specific knowledge, proficiency and genre on reading comprehension and strategies of Malaysia ESP Students. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Reading , 1 (1).

Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behaviour research (No. 5). CUP archive.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Central University of Karnataka, Kadaganchi, India

R. M. Channaveer

Department of Social Work, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Channaveer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

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.

Channaveer, R.M., Baikady, R. (2022). Case Study. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_21

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_21

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

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

Case Study Method – 18 Advantages and Disadvantages

The case study method uses investigatory research as a way to collect data about specific demographics. This approach can apply to individuals, businesses, groups, or events. Each participant receives an equal amount of participation, offering information for collection that can then find new insights into specific trends, ideas, of hypotheses.

Interviews and research observation are the two standard methods of data collection used when following the case study method.

Researchers initially developed the case study method to develop and support hypotheses in clinical medicine. The benefits found in these efforts led the approach to transition to other industries, allowing for the examination of results through proposed decisions, processes, or outcomes. Its unique approach to information makes it possible for others to glean specific points of wisdom that encourage growth.

Several case study method advantages and disadvantages can appear when researchers take this approach.

List of the Advantages of the Case Study Method

1. It requires an intensive study of a specific unit. Researchers must document verifiable data from direct observations when using the case study method. This work offers information about the input processes that go into the hypothesis under consideration. A casual approach to data-gathering work is not effective if a definitive outcome is desired. Each behavior, choice, or comment is a critical component that can verify or dispute the ideas being considered.

Intensive programs can require a significant amount of work for researchers, but it can also promote an improvement in the data collected. That means a hypothesis can receive immediate verification in some situations.

2. No sampling is required when following the case study method. This research method studies social units in their entire perspective instead of pulling individual data points out to analyze them. That means there is no sampling work required when using the case study method. The hypothesis under consideration receives support because it works to turn opinions into facts, verifying or denying the proposals that outside observers can use in the future.

Although researchers might pay attention to specific incidents or outcomes based on generalized behaviors or ideas, the study itself won’t sample those situations. It takes a look at the “bigger vision” instead.

3. This method offers a continuous analysis of the facts. The case study method will look at the facts continuously for the social group being studied by researchers. That means there aren’t interruptions in the process that could limit the validity of the data being collected through this work. This advantage reduces the need to use assumptions when drawing conclusions from the information, adding validity to the outcome of the study over time. That means the outcome becomes relevant to both sides of the equation as it can prove specific suppositions or invalidate a hypothesis under consideration.

This advantage can lead to inefficiencies because of the amount of data being studied by researchers. It is up to the individuals involved in the process to sort out what is useful and meaningful and what is not.

4. It is a useful approach to take when formulating a hypothesis. Researchers will use the case study method advantages to verify a hypothesis under consideration. It is not unusual for the collected data to lead people toward the formulation of new ideas after completing this work. This process encourages further study because it allows concepts to evolve as people do in social or physical environments. That means a complete data set can be gathered based on the skills of the researcher and the honesty of the individuals involved in the study itself.

Although this approach won’t develop a societal-level evaluation of a hypothesis, it can look at how specific groups will react in various circumstances. That information can lead to a better decision-making process in the future for everyone involved.

5. It provides an increase in knowledge. The case study method provides everyone with analytical power to increase knowledge. This advantage is possible because it uses a variety of methodologies to collect information while evaluating a hypothesis. Researchers prefer to use direct observation and interviews to complete their work, but it can also advantage through the use of questionnaires. Participants might need to fill out a journal or diary about their experiences that can be used to study behaviors or choices.

Some researchers incorporate memory tests and experimental tasks to determine how social groups will interact or respond in specific situations. All of this data then works to verify the possibilities that a hypothesis proposes.

6. The case study method allows for comparisons. The human experience is one that is built on individual observations from group situations. Specific demographics might think, act, or respond in particular ways to stimuli, but each person in that group will also contribute a small part to the whole. You could say that people are sponges that collect data from one another every day to create individual outcomes.

The case study method allows researchers to take the information from each demographic for comparison purposes. This information can then lead to proposals that support a hypothesis or lead to its disruption.

7. Data generalization is possible using the case study method. The case study method provides a foundation for data generalization, allowing researches to illustrate their statistical findings in meaningful ways. It puts the information into a usable format that almost anyone can use if they have the need to evaluate the hypothesis under consideration. This process makes it easier to discover unusual features, unique outcomes, or find conclusions that wouldn’t be available without this method. It does an excellent job of identifying specific concepts that relate to the proposed ideas that researchers were verifying through their work.

Generalization does not apply to a larger population group with the case study method. What researchers can do with this information is to suggest a predictable outcome when similar groups are placed in an equal situation.

8. It offers a comprehensive approach to research. Nothing gets ignored when using the case study method to collect information. Every person, place, or thing involved in the research receives the complete attention of those seeking data. The interactions are equal, which means the data is comprehensive and directly reflective of the group being observed.

This advantage means that there are fewer outliers to worry about when researching an idea, leading to a higher level of accuracy in the conclusions drawn by the researchers.

9. The identification of deviant cases is possible with this method. The case study method of research makes it easier to identify deviant cases that occur in each social group. These incidents are units (people) that behave in ways that go against the hypothesis under consideration. Instead of ignoring them like other options do when collecting data, this approach incorporates the “rogue” behavior to understand why it exists in the first place.

This advantage makes the eventual data and conclusions gathered more reliable because it incorporates the “alternative opinion” that exists. One might say that the case study method places as much emphasis on the yin as it does the yang so that the whole picture becomes available to the outside observer.

10. Questionnaire development is possible with the case study method. Interviews and direct observation are the preferred methods of implementing the case study method because it is cheap and done remotely. The information gathered by researchers can also lead to farming questionnaires that can farm additional data from those being studied. When all of the data resources come together, it is easier to formulate a conclusion that accurately reflects the demographics.

Some people in the case study method may try to manipulate the results for personal reasons, but this advantage makes it possible to identify this information readily. Then researchers can look into the thinking that goes into the dishonest behaviors observed.

List of the Disadvantages of the Case Study Method

1. The case study method offers limited representation. The usefulness of the case study method is limited to a specific group of representatives. Researchers are looking at a specific demographic when using this option. That means it is impossible to create any generalization that applies to the rest of society, an organization, or a larger community with this work. The findings can only apply to other groups caught in similar circumstances with the same experiences.

It is useful to use the case study method when attempting to discover the specific reasons why some people behave in a specific way. If researchers need something more generalized, then a different method must be used.

2. No classification is possible with the case study method. This disadvantage is also due to the sample size in the case study method. No classification is possible because researchers are studying such a small unit, group, or demographic. It can be an inefficient process since the skills of the researcher help to determine the quality of the data being collected to verify the validity of a hypothesis. Some participants may be unwilling to answer or participate, while others might try to guess at the outcome to support it.

Researchers can get trapped in a place where they explore more tangents than the actual hypothesis with this option. Classification can occur within the units being studied, but this data cannot extrapolate to other demographics.

3. The case study method still offers the possibility of errors. Each person has an unconscious bias that influences their behaviors and choices. The case study method can find outliers that oppose a hypothesis fairly easily thanks to its emphasis on finding facts, but it is up to the researchers to determine what information qualifies for this designation. If the results from the case study method are surprising or go against the opinion of participating individuals, then there is still the possibility that the information will not be 100% accurate.

Researchers must have controls in place that dictate how data gathering work occurs. Without this limitation in place, the results of the study cannot be guaranteed because of the presence of bias.

4. It is a subjective method to use for research. Although the purpose of the case study method of research is to gather facts, the foundation of what gets gathered is still based on opinion. It uses the subjective method instead of the objective one when evaluating data, which means there can be another layer of errors in the information to consider.

Imagine that a researcher interprets someone’s response as “angry” when performing direct observation, but the individual was feeling “shame” because of a decision they made. The difference between those two emotions is profound, and it could lead to information disruptions that could be problematic to the eventual work of hypothesis verification.

5. The processes required by the case study method are not useful for everyone. The case study method uses a person’s memories, explanations, and records from photographs and diaries to identify interactions on influences on psychological processes. People are given the chance to describe what happens in the world around them as a way for researchers to gather data. This process can be an advantage in some industries, but it can also be a worthless approach to some groups.

If the social group under study doesn’t have the information, knowledge, or wisdom to provide meaningful data, then the processes are no longer useful. Researchers must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the case study method before starting their work to determine if the possibility of value exists. If it does not, then a different method may be necessary.

6. It is possible for bias to form in the data. It’s not just an unconscious bias that can form in the data when using the case study method. The narrow study approach can lead to outright discrimination in the data. Researchers can decide to ignore outliers or any other information that doesn’t support their hypothesis when using this method. The subjective nature of this approach makes it difficult to challenge the conclusions that get drawn from this work, and the limited pool of units (people) means that duplication is almost impossible.

That means unethical people can manipulate the results gathered by the case study method to their own advantage without much accountability in the process.

7. This method has no fixed limits to it. This method of research is highly dependent on situational circumstances rather than overarching societal or corporate truths. That means the researcher has no fixed limits of investigation. Even when controls are in place to limit bias or recommend specific activities, the case study method has enough flexibility built into its structures to allow for additional exploration. That means it is possible for this work to continue indefinitely, gathering data that never becomes useful.

Scientists began to track the health of 268 sophomores at Harvard in 1938. The Great Depression was in its final years at that point, so the study hoped to reveal clues that lead to happy and healthy lives. It continues still today, now incorporating the children of the original participants, providing over 80 years of information to sort through for conclusions.

8. The case study method is time-consuming and expensive. The case study method can be affordable in some situations, but the lack of fixed limits and the ability to pursue tangents can make it a costly process in most situations. It takes time to gather the data in the first place, and then researchers must interpret the information received so that they can use it for hypothesis evaluation. There are other methods of data collection that can be less expensive and provide results faster.

That doesn’t mean the case study method is useless. The individualization of results can help the decision-making process advance in a variety of industries successfully. It just takes more time to reach the appropriate conclusion, and that might be a resource that isn’t available.

The advantages and disadvantages of the case study method suggest that the helpfulness of this research option depends on the specific hypothesis under consideration. When researchers have the correct skills and mindset to gather data accurately, then it can lead to supportive data that can verify ideas with tremendous accuracy.

This research method can also be used unethically to produce specific results that can be difficult to challenge.

When bias enters into the structure of the case study method, the processes become inefficient, inaccurate, and harmful to the hypothesis. That’s why great care must be taken when designing a study with this approach. It might be a labor-intensive way to develop conclusions, but the outcomes are often worth the investments needed.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

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

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

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

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

What is it?

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

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

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

Benefits and limitations of case studies

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

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

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

Examples of case studies

Example 1: nurses’ paediatric pain management practices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Gustafsson J
• Calanzaro M
• Sandelowski M

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Home » Pros and Cons » 12 Case Study Method Advantages and Disadvantages

12 Case Study Method Advantages and Disadvantages

A case study is an investigation into an individual circumstance. The investigation may be of a single person, business, event, or group. The investigation involves collecting in-depth data about the individual entity through the use of several collection methods. Interviews and observation are two of the most common forms of data collection used.

The case study method was originally developed in the field of clinical medicine. It has expanded since to other industries to examine key results, either positive or negative, that were received through a specific set of decisions. This allows for the topic to be researched with great detail, allowing others to glean knowledge from the information presented.

Here are the advantages and disadvantages of using the case study method.

List of the Advantages of the Case Study Method

1. it turns client observations into useable data..

Case studies offer verifiable data from direct observations of the individual entity involved. These observations provide information about input processes. It can show the path taken which led to specific results being generated. Those observations make it possible for others, in similar circumstances, to potentially replicate the results discovered by the case study method.

2. It turns opinion into fact.

Case studies provide facts to study because you’re looking at data which was generated in real-time. It is a way for researchers to turn their opinions into information that can be verified as fact because there is a proven path of positive or negative development. Singling out a specific incident also provides in-depth details about the path of development, which gives it extra credibility to the outside observer.

3. It is relevant to all parties involved.

Case studies that are chosen well will be relevant to everyone who is participating in the process. Because there is such a high level of relevance involved, researchers are able to stay actively engaged in the data collection process. Participants are able to further their knowledge growth because there is interest in the outcome of the case study. Most importantly, the case study method essentially forces people to make a decision about the question being studied, then defend their position through the use of facts.

4. It uses a number of different research methodologies.

The case study method involves more than just interviews and direct observation. Case histories from a records database can be used with this method. Questionnaires can be distributed to participants in the entity being studies. Individuals who have kept diaries and journals about the entity being studied can be included. Even certain experimental tasks, such as a memory test, can be part of this research process.

5. It can be done remotely.

Researchers do not need to be present at a specific location or facility to utilize the case study method. Research can be obtained over the phone, through email, and other forms of remote communication. Even interviews can be conducted over the phone. That means this method is good for formative research that is exploratory in nature, even if it must be completed from a remote location.

6. It is inexpensive.

Compared to other methods of research, the case study method is rather inexpensive. The costs associated with this method involve accessing data, which can often be done for free. Even when there are in-person interviews or other on-site duties involved, the costs of reviewing the data are minimal.

7. It is very accessible to readers.

The case study method puts data into a usable format for those who read the data and note its outcome. Although there may be perspectives of the researcher included in the outcome, the goal of this method is to help the reader be able to identify specific concepts to which they also relate. That allows them to discover unusual features within the data, examine outliers that may be present, or draw conclusions from their own experiences.

List of the Disadvantages of the Case Study Method

1. it can have influence factors within the data..

Every person has their own unconscious bias. Although the case study method is designed to limit the influence of this bias by collecting fact-based data, it is the collector of the data who gets to define what is a “fact” and what is not. That means the real-time data being collected may be based on the results the researcher wants to see from the entity instead. By controlling how facts are collected, a research can control the results this method generates.

2. It takes longer to analyze the data.

The information collection process through the case study method takes much longer to collect than other research options. That is because there is an enormous amount of data which must be sifted through. It’s not just the researchers who can influence the outcome in this type of research method. Participants can also influence outcomes by given inaccurate or incomplete answers to questions they are asked. Researchers must verify the information presented to ensure its accuracy, and that takes time to complete.

3. It can be an inefficient process.

Case study methods require the participation of the individuals or entities involved for it to be a successful process. That means the skills of the researcher will help to determine the quality of information that is being received. Some participants may be quiet, unwilling to answer even basic questions about what is being studied. Others may be overly talkative, exploring tangents which have nothing to do with the case study at all. If researchers are unsure of how to manage this process, then incomplete data is often collected.

4. It requires a small sample size to be effective.

The case study method requires a small sample size for it to yield an effective amount of data to be analyzed. If there are different demographics involved with the entity, or there are different needs which must be examined, then the case study method becomes very inefficient.

5. It is a labor-intensive method of data collection.

The case study method requires researchers to have a high level of language skills to be successful with data collection. Researchers must be personally involved in every aspect of collecting the data as well. From reviewing files or entries personally to conducting personal interviews, the concepts and themes of this process are heavily reliant on the amount of work each researcher is willing to put into things.

These case study method advantages and disadvantages offer a look at the effectiveness of this research option. With the right skill set, it can be used as an effective tool to gather rich, detailed information about specific entities. Without the right skill set, the case study method becomes inefficient and inaccurate.

Related Posts:

• 25 Best Ways to Overcome the Fear of Failure
• Monroe's Motivated Sequence Explained [with Examples]
• 21 Most Effective Bundle Pricing Strategies with Examples
• Force Field Analysis Explained with Examples

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

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

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

768k Accesses

1033 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

Peer Review reports

Introduction

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

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

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

What is a case study?

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

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

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

What are case studies used for?

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

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

How are case studies conducted?

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

Defining the case

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

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

Selecting the case(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collecting the data

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

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

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

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Pre-publication history

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

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

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Res Notes

The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations

Trygve nissen.

1 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, N-9038 Tromsø, Norway

2 Division of General Psychiatry, University Hospital of North Norway, N-9291 Tromsø, Norway

3 Division of Addictions and Specialized Psychiatry, University Hospital of North Norway, N-9291 Tromsø, Norway

The clinical case report has a long-standing tradition in the medical literature. While its scientific significance has become smaller as more advanced research methods have gained ground, case reports are still presented in many medical journals. Some scholars point to its limited value for medical progress, while others assert that the genre is undervalued. We aimed to present the various points of view regarding the merits and limitations of the case report genre. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and select textbooks on epidemiology and medical research for articles and book-chapters discussing the merits and limitations of clinical case reports and case series.

The major merits of case reporting were these: Detecting novelties, generating hypotheses, pharmacovigilance, high applicability when other research designs are not possible to carry out, allowing emphasis on the narrative aspect (in-depth understanding), and educational value. The major limitations were: Lack of ability to generalize, no possibility to establish cause-effect relationship, danger of over-interpretation, publication bias, retrospective design, and distraction of reader when focusing on the unusual.

Conclusions

Despite having lost its central role in medical literature in the 20th century, the genre still appears popular. It is a valuable part of the various research methods, especially since it complements other approaches. Furthermore, it also contributes in areas of medicine that are not specifically research-related, e.g. as an educational tool. Revision of the case report genre has been attempted in order to integrate the biomedical model with the narrative approach, but without significant success. The future prospects of the case report could possibly be in new applications of the genre, i.e. exclusive case report databases available online, and open access for clinicians and researchers.

Throughout history the clinical case report and case report series have been integral components of medical literature [ 1 ]. The case report genre held a strong position until it was sidelined in the second half of the 20 th century [ 2 , 3 ]. New methodologies for research articles paved the way for evidence-based medicine. Editors had to make space for these research articles and at the same time signaled less enthusiasm for publishing case reports [ 4 ]. This spurred some heated debates in medical journals as readers were worried that the traditional case report was in jeopardy [ 5 , 6 ]. Those who welcomed the new trend with fewer case reports being published pointed mainly to their low quality and inclination to emphasize mere curiosa [ 7 - 9 ]. Some of the proponents of the genre claimed that the case report had been and still was indispensible for furthering medical knowledge and that it was unique in taking care of the detailed study of the individual patient as opposed to the new research methods with their “…nomothetic approach [taking] precedence…” [ 5 ]. Still, the case report got a low ranking on the evidence hierarchy. After a decline in popularity a new interest for the case report emerged, probably beginning in the late 1990s [ 2 ]. A peer-reviewed ‘Case reports’ section was introduced in the Lancet in 1995 [ 10 ]. In 2007, the first international, Pubmed-listed medical journal publishing only case reports was established [ 11 , 12 ]. In the following years, several similar journals, for the most part online and open-access, have been launched.

The present debate is not so much focused on whether case reporting is obsolete or not. Some of the discussions after the turn of the century have been about adapting the case report genre to new challenges. One example is the suggestion of incorporating the narrative, i.e. “… stressing the patient’s story”, in the case report [ 13 ]. The authors termed their initiative “The storied case report”. Their endeavor was not met with success. In analyzing the causes for this, they wondered if “… junior trainees find it too hard to determine what is relevant and senior trainees find it too hard to change their habits” [ 13 ]. A similar attempt was done when the editors of the Journal of Medical Case Reports in 2012 encouraged authors to include the patients’ perspectives by letting patients describe their own experiences [ 14 ].

Notwithstanding, we feel there is much to be gained from having an ongoing discussion highlighting the indications and contraindications for producing case reports. This can to some degree be facilitated by getting an understanding of the merits and limitations of the genre. The objective of this article is to present the merits and limitations of case reports and case series reports.

We adopted Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary’s definition of the case report : “A formal summary of a unique patient and his or her illness, including the presenting signs and symptoms, diagnostic studies, treatment course and outcome” [ 15 ]. A case report consists of one or two cases, most often only one. The case series or case series report usually consists of three to ten cases [ 16 ]. (In the following we use the term case report to denote both case reports and case series report). Case reports are most often naturalistic and descriptive. Sometimes, however, they can be prospective and experimental.

As literature specifically dealing with the case report genre seemed harder to elicit from the databases than the vast amount of particular case reports, we performed iterative searches. We searched Google Scholar and PubMed using the search terms ‘case report(s)’, ‘case series’, ‘case series report(s)’, ‘case reporting’ in various combinations with ‘clinical’, ‘medical’, ‘anecdotal’, ‘methodology’, ‘review’, ‘overview’, ‘strengths’, ‘weaknesses’, ‘merits’, and ‘limitations’. Further references were identified by examining the literature found in the electronic searches. We also consulted major textbooks on epidemiology [ 17 , 18 ], some scholars of medical genres [ 19 , 20 ] and a monograph on case reporting by the epidemiologist M. Jenicek [ 16 ]. We delimited our review to the retrospective, naturalistic, and descriptive case report, also labeled the “traditional” or “classic” case report, and case series including such reports. Thus we excluded other types, such as the planned, qualitative case study approach [ 21 ] and simulated cases [ 22 - 24 ]. Finally, we extracted the relevant data and grouped the merits and limitations items in rank order with the items we judged to be the most important first.

New observations

The major advantage of case reporting is probably its ability to detect novelties [ 16 ]. It is the only way to present unusual, uncontrolled observations regarding symptoms, clinical findings, course of illness, complications of interventions, associations of diseases, side effects of drugs, etc. In short, anything that is rare or has never been observed previously might be important for the medical community and ought to be published. A case report might sensitize readers and thus facilitate detection of similar or identical cases.

Generating hypotheses

From a single, or preferably several single case reports or a case series, new hypotheses could be formulated. These could then be tested with formal research methods that are designed to refute or confirm the hypotheses, i.e. comparative (observational and experimental) studies.

There are numerous examples of new discoveries or major advancements in medicine that started with a case report or, in some cases, as humbly as a letter to the editor. The first concern from the medical community about the devastating side effect of thalidomide, i.e. the congenital abnormalities, appeared as a letter to the editor in the Lancet in 1961 [ 25 ]. Soon thereafter, several case reports and case series reports were published in various journals. Case reporting is thus indispensable in drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance) [ 26 ].

Sometimes significant advancements in knowledge have come not from what researchers were pursuing, but from “accidental discoveries”, i.e. by serendipity. The story of Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in 1928 is well known in the medical field [ 27 ]. Psychiatry has profited to a large degree from this mode of advancing medical science as many of the drugs used for mental disorders have been discovered serendipitously [ 27 ]. One notable example is the discovery of the effect of lithium on manic episodes in patients with manic-depressive disorder [ 28 ]. A more recent discovery is the successful treatment of infantile hemangiomas with systemic propranolol. This discovery was published, as a case series report, in the correspondence section in New England Journal of Medicine [ 29 ]. However, the evidence for the effect of this treatment is still preliminary, and several randomized trials are under way [ 30 , 31 ].

Clear and operational entities are prerequisites for doing medical research. Descriptions must come before understanding. Clinical observations that lead to new disorders being described are well suited for case reporting. The medical literature is replete with case-based articles describing new diseases and syndromes. One notable example is the first description of neurasthenia by G. Beard in Boston Medical and Surgical Journal in 1869 [ 32 ].

Researching rare disorders

For rare disorders randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be impossible to run due to lack of patients to be enrolled. Research on drug treatment and other kinds of interventions must therefore be based on less rigorous methodologies, among them case series and case reports. This would be in accordance with the European Commission’s recommendation to its members to improve health care for those with rare disorders [ 33 ].

Solving ethical constraints

Case reporting can be valuable when ethical constraints prohibit experimental research. Take as an example the challenge of how to manage the side effects of accidental extravasation of cytotoxic drugs. As RCTs on humans seem unethical in this clinical situation the current guidelines rest on small observational studies, case reports and animal studies [ 34 ]. Or another example: Physical restraint is sometimes associated with sudden, unexpected death. The cause or causes for this are to some degree enigmatic, and it is hard to conceive of a controlled study that could be ethical [ 35 , 36 ]. Case reports and case series being “natural experiments” might be the only evidence available for guiding clinical practice.

In-depth narrative case studies

Case reporting can be a way of presenting research with an idiographic emphasis. As contrasted to nomothetic research, an idiographic approach aims at in-depth understanding of human phenomena, especially in the field of psychology and psychiatry. The objective is not generalizable knowledge, but an understanding of meaning and intentionality for an individual or individuals. Sigmund Freud’s case studies are relevant examples. This usage of case reports borders on qualitative research. Qualitative studies, although developed in the social sciences, have become a welcome contribution within health sciences in the last two decades.

Educational value

Clinical medical learning is to a large degree case-based. Typical case histories and vignettes are often presented in textbooks, in lectures, etc. Unusual observations presented as published case reports are important as part of doctors’ continuing medical education, especially as they demonstrate the diversity of manifestations both within and between medical diseases and syndromes [ 37 , 38 ]. Among the various medical texts, the case report is the only one that presents day-to-day clinical practice, clinicians’ diagnostic reasoning, disease management, and follow-up. We believe that some case reports that are written with the aim of contributing to medical knowledge turn out to be of most value educationally because the phenomena have already been described elsewhere. Other case reports are clearly primarily written for educational value [ 37 ]. Some journals have regular sections dedicated to educational case reports, e.g. The Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Clinical Case Conference found in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

The cost of doing a case report is low compared to planned, formal studies. Most often the necessary work is probably done in the clinical setting without specific funding. Larger studies, for instance RCTs, will usually need an academic setting.

Fast publication

The time span from observation to publication can be much shorter than for other kinds of studies. This is obviously a great advantage as a case report can be an important alert to the medical community about a serious event. The unexpected side effects of the sedative-antinauseant thalidomide on newborn babies is a telling story. The drug had been prescribed during pregnancy to the babies’ mothers. After the first published observation of severe abnormalities in babies appeared as a letter to the editor of the Lancet in December 16 th , 1961 [ 25 ], several case reports and series followed [ 39 , 40 ]. It should be mentioned though that the drug company had announced on December 2 nd , 1961, i.e. two weeks before the letter from McBride [ 25 ], that it would withdraw the drug form the market immediately [ 41 ].

Flexible structure

Riaz Agha, editor of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports suggests that the case report, with its less rigid structure is useful as it “… allows the surgeon(s) to discuss their diagnostic approach, the context, background, decision-making, reasoning and outcomes” [ 42 ]. Although the editor is commenting on the surgical case report, the argument can be applied for the whole field of clinical medicine. It should be mentioned though, that other commentators have argued for a more standardized, in effect more rigid, structure [ 43 ].

Clinical practice can be changed

Case reporting can lead to or contribute to a change in clinical practice. A drug might be withdrawn from the market. Or a relabeling might change the attitude to and treatment of a condition. During Word War I the shell shock syndrome was labeled and described thoroughly in several articles in the Lancet , the first of them appearing in February 1915 [ 44 ]. The author was the British captain and military doctor Charles S. Myers. Before his efforts to bring good care and treatment to afflicted soldiers there had been a common misconception that many of these dysfunctional soldiers were malingerers or cowards.

Exercise for novice researchers

The case report format is well suited for young doctors not yet trained as researchers. It can be an opportunity for a first exercise in authoring an article and a preparation for a scientific career [ 37 , 45 , 46 ].

Communication between the clinical and academic fields

Articles authored by clinicians can promote communication between practicing clinicians and academic researchers. Observations published can generate ideas and be a trigger for further studies. For instance, a case series consisting of several similar cases in a short period can make up the case-group for a case–control study [ 47 ]. Clinicians could do the observation and publish the case series while the case–control study could be left to the academics.

Entertainment

Some commentators find reading case reports fun. Although a rather weak argument in favor of case reporting, the value of being entertained should not be dismissed altogether. It might inspire physicians to spend more time browsing and reading scientific literature [ 48 ].

Studying the history of medicine

Finally, we present a note on a different and unintended aspect of the genre. The accumulated case reports from past eras are a rich resource for researching and understanding medical history [ 49 , 50 ]. A close study of old case reports can provide valuable information about how medicine has been practiced through the centuries [ 50 , 51 ].

Limitations

No epidemiological quantities.

As case reports are not chosen from representative population samples they cannot generate information on rates, ratios, incidences or prevalences. The case or cases being the numerator in the equation, has no denominator. However, if a case series report consists of a cluster of cases, it can signal an important and possibly causal association, e.g. an epidemic or a side effect of a newly marketed drug.

Causal inference not possible

Causality cannot be inferred from an uncontrolled observation. An association does not imply a cause-effect relationship. The observation or event in question could be a mere coincidence. This is a limitation shared by all the descriptive studies [ 47 ]. Take the thalidomide tragedy already mentioned as an example; Unusual events such as congenital malformations in some of the children born to mothers having taken a specific drug during pregnancy does not prove that the drug is the culprit. It is a mere hypothesis until further studies have either rejected or confirmed it. Cause-effect relationships require planned studies including control groups that to the extent possible control for chance, bias and confounders [ 52 ].

Generalization not possible

From the argument above, it follows that findings from case reports cannot be generalized. In order to generalize we need both a cause-effect relationship and a representative population for which the findings are valid. A single case report has neither. A case series, on the other hand, e.g. many “thalidomide babies” in a short time period, could strengthen the suspicion of a causal relationship, demanding further surveillance and research.

Publication bias could be a limiting factor. Journals in general favor positive-outcome findings [ 53 ]. One group of investigators studying case reports published in the Lancet found that only 5% of case reports and 10% of case series reported treatment failures [ 54 ]. A study of 435 case reports from the field of dentistry found that in 99.1%, the reports “…clearly [had] a positive outcome and the intervention was considered and described as successful by the authors” [ 55 ].

Overinterpretation

Overinterpretation or misinterpretation is the tendency or temptation to generalize when there is no justification for it. It has also been labeled “the anecdotal fallacy” [ 56 ]. This is not a shortcoming intrinsic to the method itself. Overinterpretation may be due to the phenomenon of case reports often having an emotional appeal on readers. The story implicitly makes a claim to truth. The reader might conclude prematurely that there is a causal connection. The phenomenon might be more clearly illustrated by the impact of the clinician’s load of personal cases on his or her practice. Here exemplified by a young doctor’s confession: “I often tell residents and medical students, ‘The only thing that actually changes practice is adverse anecdote.’” [ 57 ].

Emphasis on the rare

As case reporting often deals with the rare and atypical, it might divert the readers’ attention from common diseases and problems [ 58 ].

Confidentiality

Journals today require written informed consent from patients before publishing case reports. Both authors and publishers are responsible for securing confidentiality. A guarantee for full confidentiality is not always possible. Despite all possible measures taken to preserve confidentiality, sometimes the patient will be recognized by someone. This information should be given to the patient. An adequately informed patient might not consent to publication. In 1995 in an Editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry one commentator, Isaac Marks, feared that written consent would discourage case reports being written [ 59 ]. Fortunately, judged form the large number of reports being published today, it seems unlikely that the demand for consent has impeded their publication.

Other methodological limitations

Case reports and series are written after the relevant event, i.e. the observation. Thus, the reports are produced retrospectively. The medical record might not contain all relevant data. Recall bias might prevent us from getting the necessary information from the patient or other informants such as family members and health professionals.

It has also been held against case reporting that it is subjective. The observer’s subjectivity might bias the quality and interpretation of the observation (i.e. information bias).

Finally, the falsification criterion within science, which is tested by repeating an experiment, cannot be applied for case reports. We cannot design another identical and uncontrolled observation. However, unplanned similar “experiments” of nature can be repeated. Several such observations can constitute a case series that represents stronger indicative evidence than the single case report.

The major advantages of case reporting are the ability to make new observations, generate hypotheses, accumulate scientific data about rare disorders, do in-depth narrative studies, and serve as a major educational tool. The method is deficient mainly in being unable to deliver quantitative data. Nor can it prove cause-effect relationship or allow generalizations. Furthermore, there is a risk of overinterpretation and publication bias.

The traditional case report does not fit easily into the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy of research methods. It certainly shares some characteristics with qualitative research [ 16 ], especially with regard to the idiographic, narrative perspective – the patient’s “interior world” [ 60 ] – that sometimes is attended to. Apart from “The storied case report” mentioned in the Background-section, other innovative modifications of the traditional case report have been tried: the “evidence-based case report” [ 61 ], the “interactive case report” [ 62 ] and the “integrated narrative and evidence based case report” [ 63 ]. These modifications of the format have not made a lasting impact on the way case reports in general are written today.

The method of case reporting is briefly dealt with in some textbooks on epidemiology [ 17 , 18 ]. Journals that welcome case reports often put more emphasis on style and design than on content in their ‘instruction to authors’ section [ 64 ]. As a consequence, Sorinola and coworkers argue for more consensus and more consistent guidance on writing case reports [ 64 ]. We feel that a satisfactory amount of guidance concerning both style and content now exists [ 12 , 16 , 65 , 66 ]. The latest contribution, “The CARE guidelines”, is an ambitious endeavor to improve completeness and transparency of reports [ 66 ]. These guidelines have included the “Patient perspective” as an item, apparently a bit half-heartedly as this item is placed after the Discussion section, thus not allowing this perspective to influence the Discussion and/or Conclusion section. We assume this is symptomatic of medicine’s problem with integrating the biomedical model with “narrative-based medicine”.

In recent years the medical community has taken an increased interest in case reports [ 2 ], especially after the surge of online, exclusive case report journals started in 2007 with the Journal of Medical Case Reports (which was the first international, Pubmed-listed medical journal publishing only case reports) as the first of this new brand. The climate of skepticism has been replaced by enthusiasm and demand for more case reports. A registry for case reports, Cases Database, was founded in 2012 [ 67 ]. On the condition that it succeeds in becoming a large, international database it could serve as a register being useful for clinicians at work as well as for medical research on various clinical issues. Assuming Pamela P. Powell’s assertion that “[a]lmost all practicing physicians eventually will encounter a case worthy of being reported” [ 60 ] is valid, there should be no shortage of potential cases waiting to be reported and filed in various databases, preferably online and open access.

Limitations of this review

There are several limitations to this study. It is a weakness that we have not been able to review all the relevant literature. The number of publications in some way related to case reports and case report series is enormous, and although we have attempted to identify those publications relevant for our purpose (i.e. those that describe the merits and limitations of the case report genre), we might have missed some. It was difficult to find good search terms for our objective. Still, after repeated electronic searches supplemented with manual searches in reference lists, we had a corpus of literature where essentially no new merits or limitations emerged.

As we point out above, the ranking of merits and limitations represents our subjective opinion and we acknowledge that others might rank the importance of the items differently.

The perspective on merits and limitations of case reporting has been strictly medical. As a consequence we have not analyzed or discussed the various non-medical factors affecting the publication of case reports in different medical journals [ 2 ]. For instance, case reports are cited less often than other kinds of medical research articles [ 68 ]. Thus they can lower a journal’s impact factor, potentially making the journal less attractive. This might lead some high-impact journals to publish few or no case reports, while other journals have chosen to specialize in this genre.

Before deciding on producing a case report or case series based on a particular patient or patients at hand, the observant clinician has to determine if the case report method is the appropriate article type. This review could hopefully assist in that judgment and perhaps be a stimulus to the continuing debate in the medical community on the value of case reporting.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

TN contributed to the conception, drafting, and revision of the article. RW contributed to the conception, drafting, and revision of the article. Both authors approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

There was no specific funding for this study.

• Cabán-Martinez AJ, Beltrán WF. Advancing medicine one note at a time: the educational value in clinical case reports. BMC Res Notes. 2012; 5 :293. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-293. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissen T, Wynn R. The recent history of the clinical case report: a narrative review. JRSM Sh Rep. 2012; 3 :87. doi: 10.1258/shorts.2012.012046. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissen T, Wynn R. The history of the case report: a selective review. JRSM Open. 2014; 5 :4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkinson G. Fare the well – the Editor’s last words. Br J Psychiatry. 2003; 182 :465–466. doi: 10.1192/bjp.182.6.465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams DDR. In defence of case of the case report (Letter) Br J Psychiatry. 2004; 184 :84. doi: 10.1192/bjp.184.1.84. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enoch MD. Case reports (Letter) Br J Psychiatry. 2005; 185 :169. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nahum AM. The clinical case report: “Pot boiler” or scientific literature? Head Neck Surg. 1979; 1 :291–292. doi: 10.1002/hed.2890010402. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doherty M. What value case reports? (Editorial) Ann Rheum Dis. 1994; 53 :1–2. doi: 10.1136/ard.53.1.1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Procopio M. Publication of case reports. Br J Psychiatry. 2005; 187 :91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bignall J, Horton R. Learning from stories – Lancet’s case reports. Lancet. 1995; 346 :1256. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd M, Hubbard C. Introducing Journal of Medical Case Reports. J Med Case Rep. 2007; 1 :1. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-1-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rison RA. A guide to writing case reports for the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BioMed Central Research Notes. J Med Case Reports. 2013; 7 :239. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-7-239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bayoumi AM, Kopplin PA. The storied case report. CMAJ. 2004; 171 :569–570. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1031503. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd MR, Saltman D. Case reports at the vanguard of the 21 st century medicine (Editorial) J Med Case Rep. 2012; 6 :156. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-6-156. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venes D. Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 21. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenicek M. Clinical case reporting in evidence-based medicine. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical epidemiology: The essentials. 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sackett DL, Brian Haynes R, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkencotter C. Patient tales. Case histories and the uses of narrative in psychiatry. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter KM. Doctors’ stories. The narrative structure of medical knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11 :100. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wynn R, Kvalvik AM, Hynnekleiv T. Attitudes to coercion at two Norwegian psychiatric units. Nord J Psychiatry. 2011; 65 :133–137. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2010.513068. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wynn R, Myklebust LH, Bratlid T. Psychologists and coercion: decisions regarding involuntary psychiatric admission and treatment in a group of Norwegian psychologists. Nord J Psychiatry. 2007; 61 :433–437. doi: 10.1080/08039480701773139. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aaker E, Knudsen A, Wynn R, Lund A. General practitioners’ reactions to non-compliant patients. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001; 19 :103–106. doi: 10.1080/028134301750235330. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McBride WG. Thalidomide and congenital abnormalities. (Letter) Lancet. 1961; 278 :1358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chakra CAN, Pariente A, Pinet M, Nkeng L, Moore N, Moride Y. Case series in drug safety. A review to determine characteristics and quality. Drug Saf. 2010; 33 :1081–1088. doi: 10.2165/11539300-000000000-00000. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ban TA. The role of serendipity in drug discovery. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006; 8 :335–344. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cade JFJ. Lithium salts in the treatment of psychotic excitement. Med J Aust. 1949; 2 :349–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Léauté-Labrèze C, de la Roque Dumas E, Hubiche T, Boralevi F. Propranolol for severe hemangiomas of infancy. (Letter to the editor) N Engl J Med. 2008; 358 :2649–2651. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc0708819. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fretheim A. Godt nok dokumentert? (Sufficiently documented?) (Editorial) Tidsskr Nor Legeforen. 2010; 130 :1806. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. National Institutes of Health. Studies found for the search 'propanolol and hemangiomas' in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Accessed on 22 April, 2014 at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=propanolol+and+hemangiomas&Search=Search .
• Beard G. Neurasthenia, or nervous exhaustion. Boston Med Surg J. 1869; 80 :217–221. doi: 10.1056/NEJM186904290801301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor DM. Developing a strategy for the management of rare disorders. BMJ. 2012; 344 :e2417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2417. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjånes TK. Lokale bivirkninger ved parenteral administrering av legemidler. (Localized side effects caused by parenteral administration of drugs) Tidsskr Nor Legeforen. 2011; 131 :472–474. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissen T, Rørvik P, Haugslett L, Wynn R. Physical restraint and near death of a psychiatric patient. J Forensic Sci. 2013; 58 :259–262. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02290.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wynn R. Coercion in psychiatric care: clinical, legal, and ethical controversies. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2006; 10 :247–251. doi: 10.1080/13651500600650026. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundh A, Christensen M, Jørgensen AW. International or national publication of case reports. Dan Med Bul. 2011; 58 :A4242. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grønli O, Wynn R. Normocalcemic hyperparathyroidism and treatment resistant depression. Psychosomatics. 2013; 54 :493–497. doi: 10.1016/j.psym.2012.10.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward SP. Thalidomide and congenital abnormalities. BMJ. 1962; 2 (5305):646–647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5305.646. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coodin FJ, Uchida CM, Murphy CH. Phocomelia: report of three cases. CMAJ. 1962; 87 :735–739. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyman DJ. Managing director of the Destillers Company Ltd. (Letter) Lancet. 1961; 278 :1262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agha R, Rosin RD. Time for a new approach to case reports. (Editorial) Int J Surg Case Rep. 2010; 1 :1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2010.04.001. doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2010.04.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronson JA. Anecdotes as evidence. (Editorial) BMJ. 2003; 326 :1346. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1346. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers CS. A contribution to the study of the shell shock. Being an account of three cases of loss of memory, vision, smell and taste, admitted into the Duchess of Westminster’s War Hospital, Le Touquet. Lancet. 1915; 185 :316–320. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)52916-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris BA. The importance of case reports. (Letter to the Editor) CMAJ. 1989; 141 :875–876. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rison RA. Neurology case reports: a call for all. J Med Case Rep. 2011; 5 :113. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-113. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet. 2002; 359 :145–149. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07373-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang S. Anecdotes in medicine - 15 years of Lancet case reports. Lancet. 2010; 376 :1448–1449. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60624-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose JC, Corn M. Dr. E. and other patients: new lessons from old case reports. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1984; 39 :3–32. doi: 10.1093/jhmas/39.1.3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Álvarez Millán C. Practice versus theory: tenth-century case histories from Islamic Middle East. Soc Hist Med. 2000; 13 :293–306. doi: 10.1093/shm/13.2.293. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Álvarez Millán C. The case history in Medieval Islamic medical literature: Tajarib and Mujarrabat as source. Med Hist. 2010; 54 :195–214. doi: 10.1017/S0025727300006712. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. 3. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991; 337 :867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albrecht J, Meves A, Bigby M. Case reports and case series from the Lancet had significant impact on medical literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58 :1227–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.04.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliveira GJ, Leles CR. Critical appraisal and positive outcome bias in case reports published in Brazilian dental journals. J Dent Educ. 2006; 70 :869–874. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charlton BG, Walston F. Individual case studies in clinical research. J Eval Clin Practice. 1998; 4 :147–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1998.tb00081.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuebe AM. Level IV evidence – adverse anecdote and clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365 :8–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1102632. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman JR. Rethinking case reports. West J Med. 1999; 170 :253–254. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkinson G, Fahy T, Russell G, Healy D, Marks I, Tantam D, Dimond B. Case reports and confidentiality. (Editorial) Br J Psychiatry. 1995; 166 :555–558. doi: 10.1192/bjp.166.5.555. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell PP. The single-case report in medical literature: the ‘Elephant man’ serves as an exellent example. J Am Med Writers Assoc. 1990; 5 :9–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasziou P. Evidence based case report: twenty year cough in a non-smoker. BMJ. 1998; 316 :1660–1661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7145.1660. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harker N, Montgomery A, Fahey T. Interactive case report. Treating nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: case outcome. BMJ. 2004; 328 :276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7434.276. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis S, Hermoni D, Livingstone P, Borkan J. Integrated narrative and evidence based case report: case report of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation. BMJ. 2002; 325 :1018–1020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7371.1018. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorinola O, Olufowobi O, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. Instructions to authors for case reporting are limited: a review of a core journal list. BMC Med Educ. 2004; 4 :4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-4-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rossor MN. In: How to write a paper. 4. Hall GM, editor. London: Blackwell Publishing; 2008. How to write a case report; pp. 71–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. CARE group. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. J Med Case Rep. 2013; 7 :223. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-7-223. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• BioMed Central. Cases Database. Accessed on 22 April, 2014 at: http://www.casesdatabase.com .
• Mason RA. The case report – an endangered species? (Editorial) Anesthesia. 2001; 56 :99–102. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01919.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Communication
• Recreational

Pros and Cons of case studies

• Post author: admin
• Post published: March 27, 2020
• Post category: Education
• Post comments: 0 Comments

Case studies are research methodologies that are used and analyzed in order to depict principles; they have been usually used in social sciences. They are research strategies and experiential inquiries that seek to examine various phenomena within a real-life context. Case studies seek to explain and give details in the analysis of people and events. There are several pros that back case studies and there are cons too that criticize them. The pros and cons are listed below.

1 . They show client observations- Since case studies are strategies that are used and analyzed in order to describe principles therefore it seeks to show indeed the client investigated and experienced a particular phenomenon.

2 . Makes practical improvements- Case studies present facts that categorically describe particular people or events in order to make some of the necessary improvements. Case studies data is what supports a particular belief.

3 . They are an influential way of portraying something- If a researcher wants to prove a particular principle to be true, he or she must back it by case studies in order to make the other people and the naysayers believe.

4 . They turn opinions into facts- Case studies present real data on a particular phenomenon. Since facts about various things are presented then it can be verified through this kind of data if the information presented is in the positive or negative development of opinion.

5 . It is relevant to all the parties that are involved- Case studies help the researchers in actively focusing on the data collection process and the participants’ knowledge is bettered. At the end of the process, everybody is able to defend his position through facts.

6 . A number of different research methodologies can be used in case the studies- Case study method goes beyond the interview and direct observations. Secondary data can be obtained from various historical sources that can be used to back the method.

7 . Case studies can be done remotely- It is not essential for a researcher to be present in the specific location of the study in order to effectively use the case study method. Other forms of communication come in to cover that gap for the researcher.

8 . It has a very high cost- If you put this research method in comparison to the others, this one seems more expensive because the cost of accessing data is very high.

9 . Readers can access data from this method very easily- The The format in which case studies present their data is very useful to the readers and easily note the outcomes of the same.

10 . Collects data that cannot be collected by another method- The type of data collected by case studies is much richer and greater in-depth than that of the other experimental methods.

1 . Data collected cannot be generalized- The data collected by the case study method was collected from a smaller population it cannot be generalized to the wider population.

2 . Some of the case studies are not scientific- The weakness of the data collected in some of the case studies that are not scientific is that it cannot be generalized.

3 . It is very difficult to draw a definite cause/effect from case studies- The the kind of data that case studies present cannot be used to draw a definite cause-effect relationship.

4 . Case studies concentrate on one experiment- The problem associated with concentrating on one experiment or a specific group of people is that the data presented might contain some kind of bias.

5 . It takes a lot of time to analyze the data- This process takes longer to analyze the data because there is a very large amount of data that must be collected. Participants might take a lot of time in giving answers or giving inaccurate information.

6 . Case studies can be inefficient processes- Sometimes the researchers are not present in the study areas which means they will not be able to notice whether the information provided is accurate or not terming the whole process inefficient.

7 . Case study method can only be effective with a small sample size- If a very large sample size is involved in the case study it is likely for it to become inefficient because the method requires a small sample size to get the data and analyze it.

8 . The method requires a lot of labor in data collection- The researcher is seriously needed in the data collection of this method. They have to be personally involved in order to be able to identify the quality of the data provided.

9 . There are factors that can influence the data- The method of data collection is meant to collect fact-based data but the power to determine what fact is and what is not is the person who is collecting the data.

10 . There is no right answer in case studies- Case studies do not present any specific answer that is right, the problem arises in the validation of solutions because there is more than one way of looking at things.

You Might Also Like

Pros and Cons of I/O Psychology

Pros and cons of logistic regression

Pros and Cons of living on campus

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

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-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

Published on February 4, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A case-control study is an experimental design that compares a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition. Here, the participants possessing the attribute of study, such as a disease, are called the “case,” and those without it are the “control.”

It’s important to remember that the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

Table of contents

When to use a case-control study, examples of case-control studies, advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Case-control studies are a type of observational study often used in fields like medical research, environmental health, or epidemiology. While most observational studies are qualitative in nature, case-control studies can also be quantitative , and they often are in healthcare settings. Case-control studies can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research , and they are a good choice for studying research topics like disease exposure and health outcomes.

A case-control study may be a good fit for your research if it meets the following criteria.

• Data on exposure (e.g., to a chemical or a pesticide) are difficult to obtain or expensive.
• The disease associated with the exposure you’re studying has a long incubation period or is rare or under-studied (e.g., AIDS in the early 1980s).
• The population you are studying is difficult to contact for follow-up questions (e.g., asylum seekers).

Retrospective cohort studies use existing secondary research data, such as medical records or databases, to identify a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor and to observe their outcomes over time. Case-control studies conduct primary research , comparing a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition in real time.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Case-control studies are common in fields like epidemiology, healthcare, and psychology.

You would then collect data on your participants’ exposure to contaminated drinking water, focusing on variables such as the source of said water and the duration of exposure, for both groups. You could then compare the two to determine if there is a relationship between drinking water contamination and the risk of developing a gastrointestinal illness. Example: Healthcare case-control study You are interested in the relationship between the dietary intake of a particular vitamin (e.g., vitamin D) and the risk of developing osteoporosis later in life. Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, while the control group would be individuals without osteoporosis.

You would then collect information on dietary intake of vitamin D for both the cases and controls and compare the two groups to determine if there is a relationship between vitamin D intake and the risk of developing osteoporosis. Example: Psychology case-control study You are studying the relationship between early-childhood stress and the likelihood of later developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with PTSD, while the control group would be individuals without PTSD.

Case-control studies are a solid research method choice, but they come with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies are a great choice if you have any ethical considerations about your participants that could preclude you from using a traditional experimental design .
• Case-control studies are time efficient and fairly inexpensive to conduct because they require fewer subjects than other research methods .
• If there were multiple exposures leading to a single outcome, case-control studies can incorporate that. As such, they truly shine when used to study rare outcomes or outbreaks of a particular disease .

Disadvantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies, similarly to observational studies, run a high risk of research biases . They are particularly susceptible to observer bias , recall bias , and interviewer bias.
• In the case of very rare exposures of the outcome studied, attempting to conduct a case-control study can be very time consuming and inefficient .
• Case-control studies in general have low internal validity  and are not always credible.

Case-control studies by design focus on one singular outcome. This makes them very rigid and not generalizable , as no extrapolation can be made about other outcomes like risk recurrence or future exposure threat. This leads to less satisfying results than other methodological choices.

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.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A case-control study differs from a cohort study because cohort studies are more longitudinal in nature and do not necessarily require a control group .

While one may be added if the investigator so chooses, members of the cohort are primarily selected because of a shared characteristic among them. In particular, retrospective cohort studies are designed to follow a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor over time and observe their outcomes.

Case-control studies, in contrast, require both a case group and a control group, as suggested by their name, and usually are used to identify risk factors for a disease by comparing cases and controls.

A case-control study differs from a cross-sectional study because case-control studies are naturally retrospective in nature, looking backward in time to identify exposures that may have occurred before the development of the disease.

On the other hand, cross-sectional studies collect data on a population at a single point in time. The goal here is to describe the characteristics of the population, such as their age, gender identity, or health status, and understand the distribution and relationships of these characteristics.

Cases and controls are selected for a case-control study based on their inherent characteristics. Participants already possessing the condition of interest form the “case,” while those without form the “control.”

Keep in mind that by definition the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

The strength of the association between an exposure and a disease in a case-control study can be measured using a few different statistical measures , such as odds ratios (ORs) and relative risk (RR).

No, case-control studies cannot establish causality as a standalone measure.

As observational studies , they can suggest associations between an exposure and a disease, but they cannot prove without a doubt that the exposure causes the disease. In particular, issues arising from timing, research biases like recall bias , and the selection of variables lead to low internal validity and the inability to determine causality.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-control-study/

Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis (Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 2) (Illustrated). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, control groups and treatment groups | uses & examples, cross-sectional study | definition, uses & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

The Advantages and Limitations of Single Case Study Analysis

As Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman have recently noted, qualitative research methods presently enjoy “an almost unprecedented popularity and vitality… in the international relations sub-field”, such that they are now “indisputably prominent, if not pre-eminent” (2010: 499). This is, they suggest, due in no small part to the considerable advantages that case study methods in particular have to offer in studying the “complex and relatively unstructured and infrequent phenomena that lie at the heart of the subfield” (Bennett and Elman, 2007: 171). Using selected examples from within the International Relations literature[1], this paper aims to provide a brief overview of the main principles and distinctive advantages and limitations of single case study analysis. Divided into three inter-related sections, the paper therefore begins by first identifying the underlying principles that serve to constitute the case study as a particular research strategy, noting the somewhat contested nature of the approach in ontological, epistemological, and methodological terms. The second part then looks to the principal single case study types and their associated advantages, including those from within the recent ‘third generation’ of qualitative International Relations (IR) research. The final section of the paper then discusses the most commonly articulated limitations of single case studies; while accepting their susceptibility to criticism, it is however suggested that such weaknesses are somewhat exaggerated. The paper concludes that single case study analysis has a great deal to offer as a means of both understanding and explaining contemporary international relations.

The term ‘case study’, John Gerring has suggested, is “a definitional morass… Evidently, researchers have many different things in mind when they talk about case study research” (2006a: 17). It is possible, however, to distil some of the more commonly-agreed principles. One of the most prominent advocates of case study research, Robert Yin (2009: 14) defines it as “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. What this definition usefully captures is that case studies are intended – unlike more superficial and generalising methods – to provide a level of detail and understanding, similar to the ethnographer Clifford Geertz’s (1973) notion of ‘thick description’, that allows for the thorough analysis of the complex and particularistic nature of distinct phenomena. Another frequently cited proponent of the approach, Robert Stake, notes that as a form of research the case study “is defined by interest in an individual case, not by the methods of inquiry used”, and that “the object of study is a specific, unique, bounded system” (2008: 443, 445). As such, three key points can be derived from this – respectively concerning issues of ontology, epistemology, and methodology – that are central to the principles of single case study research.

First, the vital notion of ‘boundedness’ when it comes to the particular unit of analysis means that defining principles should incorporate both the synchronic (spatial) and diachronic (temporal) elements of any so-called ‘case’. As Gerring puts it, a case study should be “an intensive study of a single unit… a spatially bounded phenomenon – e.g. a nation-state, revolution, political party, election, or person – observed at a single point in time or over some delimited period of time” (2004: 342). It is important to note, however, that – whereas Gerring refers to a single unit of analysis – it may be that attention also necessarily be given to particular sub-units. This points to the important difference between what Yin refers to as an ‘holistic’ case design, with a single unit of analysis, and an ’embedded’ case design with multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2009: 50-52). The former, for example, would examine only the overall nature of an international organization, whereas the latter would also look to specific departments, programmes, or policies etc.

Secondly, as Tim May notes of the case study approach, “even the most fervent advocates acknowledge that the term has entered into understandings with little specification or discussion of purpose and process” (2011: 220). One of the principal reasons for this, he argues, is the relationship between the use of case studies in social research and the differing epistemological traditions – positivist, interpretivist, and others – within which it has been utilised. Philosophy of science concerns are obviously a complex issue, and beyond the scope of much of this paper. That said, the issue of how it is that we know what we know – of whether or not a single independent reality exists of which we as researchers can seek to provide explanation – does lead us to an important distinction to be made between so-called idiographic and nomothetic case studies (Gerring, 2006b). The former refers to those which purport to explain only a single case, are concerned with particularisation, and hence are typically (although not exclusively) associated with more interpretivist approaches. The latter are those focused studies that reflect upon a larger population and are more concerned with generalisation, as is often so with more positivist approaches[2]. The importance of this distinction, and its relation to the advantages and limitations of single case study analysis, is returned to below.

Thirdly, in methodological terms, given that the case study has often been seen as more of an interpretivist and idiographic tool, it has also been associated with a distinctly qualitative approach (Bryman, 2009: 67-68). However, as Yin notes, case studies can – like all forms of social science research – be exploratory, descriptive, and/or explanatory in nature. It is “a common misconception”, he notes, “that the various research methods should be arrayed hierarchically… many social scientists still deeply believe that case studies are only appropriate for the exploratory phase of an investigation” (Yin, 2009: 6). If case studies can reliably perform any or all three of these roles – and given that their in-depth approach may also require multiple sources of data and the within-case triangulation of methods – then it becomes readily apparent that they should not be limited to only one research paradigm. Exploratory and descriptive studies usually tend toward the qualitative and inductive, whereas explanatory studies are more often quantitative and deductive (David and Sutton, 2011: 165-166). As such, the association of case study analysis with a qualitative approach is a “methodological affinity, not a definitional requirement” (Gerring, 2006a: 36). It is perhaps better to think of case studies as transparadigmatic; it is mistaken to assume single case study analysis to adhere exclusively to a qualitative methodology (or an interpretivist epistemology) even if it – or rather, practitioners of it – may be so inclined. By extension, this also implies that single case study analysis therefore remains an option for a multitude of IR theories and issue areas; it is how this can be put to researchers’ advantage that is the subject of the next section.

Having elucidated the defining principles of the single case study approach, the paper now turns to an overview of its main benefits. As noted above, a lack of consensus still exists within the wider social science literature on the principles and purposes – and by extension the advantages and limitations – of case study research. Given that this paper is directed towards the particular sub-field of International Relations, it suggests Bennett and Elman’s (2010) more discipline-specific understanding of contemporary case study methods as an analytical framework. It begins however, by discussing Harry Eckstein’s seminal (1975) contribution to the potential advantages of the case study approach within the wider social sciences.

Eckstein proposed a taxonomy which usefully identified what he considered to be the five most relevant types of case study. Firstly were so-called configurative-idiographic studies, distinctly interpretivist in orientation and predicated on the assumption that “one cannot attain prediction and control in the natural science sense, but only understanding ( verstehen )… subjective values and modes of cognition are crucial” (1975: 132). Eckstein’s own sceptical view was that any interpreter ‘simply’ considers a body of observations that are not self-explanatory and “without hard rules of interpretation, may discern in them any number of patterns that are more or less equally plausible” (1975: 134). Those of a more post-modernist bent, of course – sharing an “incredulity towards meta-narratives”, in Lyotard’s (1994: xxiv) evocative phrase – would instead suggest that this more free-form approach actually be advantageous in delving into the subtleties and particularities of individual cases.

Eckstein’s four other types of case study, meanwhile, promote a more nomothetic (and positivist) usage. As described, disciplined-configurative studies were essentially about the use of pre-existing general theories, with a case acting “passively, in the main, as a receptacle for putting theories to work” (Eckstein, 1975: 136). As opposed to the opportunity this presented primarily for theory application, Eckstein identified heuristic case studies as explicit theoretical stimulants – thus having instead the intended advantage of theory-building. So-called p lausibility probes entailed preliminary attempts to determine whether initial hypotheses should be considered sound enough to warrant more rigorous and extensive testing. Finally, and perhaps most notably, Eckstein then outlined the idea of crucial case studies , within which he also included the idea of ‘most-likely’ and ‘least-likely’ cases; the essential characteristic of crucial cases being their specific theory-testing function.

Whilst Eckstein’s was an early contribution to refining the case study approach, Yin’s (2009: 47-52) more recent delineation of possible single case designs similarly assigns them roles in the applying, testing, or building of theory, as well as in the study of unique cases[3]. As a subset of the latter, however, Jack Levy (2008) notes that the advantages of idiographic cases are actually twofold. Firstly, as inductive/descriptive cases – akin to Eckstein’s configurative-idiographic cases – whereby they are highly descriptive, lacking in an explicit theoretical framework and therefore taking the form of “total history”. Secondly, they can operate as theory-guided case studies, but ones that seek only to explain or interpret a single historical episode rather than generalise beyond the case. Not only does this therefore incorporate ‘single-outcome’ studies concerned with establishing causal inference (Gerring, 2006b), it also provides room for the more postmodern approaches within IR theory, such as discourse analysis, that may have developed a distinct methodology but do not seek traditional social scientific forms of explanation.

Applying specifically to the state of the field in contemporary IR, Bennett and Elman identify a ‘third generation’ of mainstream qualitative scholars – rooted in a pragmatic scientific realist epistemology and advocating a pluralistic approach to methodology – that have, over the last fifteen years, “revised or added to essentially every aspect of traditional case study research methods” (2010: 502). They identify ‘process tracing’ as having emerged from this as a central method of within-case analysis. As Bennett and Checkel observe, this carries the advantage of offering a methodologically rigorous “analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjunctures of events within a case, for the purposes of either developing or testing hypotheses about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case” (2012: 10).

Harnessing various methods, process tracing may entail the inductive use of evidence from within a case to develop explanatory hypotheses, and deductive examination of the observable implications of hypothesised causal mechanisms to test their explanatory capability[4]. It involves providing not only a coherent explanation of the key sequential steps in a hypothesised process, but also sensitivity to alternative explanations as well as potential biases in the available evidence (Bennett and Elman 2010: 503-504). John Owen (1994), for example, demonstrates the advantages of process tracing in analysing whether the causal factors underpinning democratic peace theory are – as liberalism suggests – not epiphenomenal, but variously normative, institutional, or some given combination of the two or other unexplained mechanism inherent to liberal states. Within-case process tracing has also been identified as advantageous in addressing the complexity of path-dependent explanations and critical junctures – as for example with the development of political regime types – and their constituent elements of causal possibility, contingency, closure, and constraint (Bennett and Elman, 2006b).

Bennett and Elman (2010: 505-506) also identify the advantages of single case studies that are implicitly comparative: deviant, most-likely, least-likely, and crucial cases. Of these, so-called deviant cases are those whose outcome does not fit with prior theoretical expectations or wider empirical patterns – again, the use of inductive process tracing has the advantage of potentially generating new hypotheses from these, either particular to that individual case or potentially generalisable to a broader population. A classic example here is that of post-independence India as an outlier to the standard modernisation theory of democratisation, which holds that higher levels of socio-economic development are typically required for the transition to, and consolidation of, democratic rule (Lipset, 1959; Diamond, 1992). Absent these factors, MacMillan’s single case study analysis (2008) suggests the particularistic importance of the British colonial heritage, the ideology and leadership of the Indian National Congress, and the size and heterogeneity of the federal state.

Most-likely cases, as per Eckstein above, are those in which a theory is to be considered likely to provide a good explanation if it is to have any application at all, whereas least-likely cases are ‘tough test’ ones in which the posited theory is unlikely to provide good explanation (Bennett and Elman, 2010: 505). Levy (2008) neatly refers to the inferential logic of the least-likely case as the ‘Sinatra inference’ – if a theory can make it here, it can make it anywhere. Conversely, if a theory cannot pass a most-likely case, it is seriously impugned. Single case analysis can therefore be valuable for the testing of theoretical propositions, provided that predictions are relatively precise and measurement error is low (Levy, 2008: 12-13). As Gerring rightly observes of this potential for falsification:

“a positivist orientation toward the work of social science militates toward a greater appreciation of the case study format, not a denigration of that format, as is usually supposed” (Gerring, 2007: 247, emphasis added).

In summary, the various forms of single case study analysis can – through the application of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative research methods – provide a nuanced, empirically-rich, holistic account of specific phenomena. This may be particularly appropriate for those phenomena that are simply less amenable to more superficial measures and tests (or indeed any substantive form of quantification) as well as those for which our reasons for understanding and/or explaining them are irreducibly subjective – as, for example, with many of the normative and ethical issues associated with the practice of international relations. From various epistemological and analytical standpoints, single case study analysis can incorporate both idiographic sui generis cases and, where the potential for generalisation may exist, nomothetic case studies suitable for the testing and building of causal hypotheses. Finally, it should not be ignored that a signal advantage of the case study – with particular relevance to international relations – also exists at a more practical rather than theoretical level. This is, as Eckstein noted, “that it is economical for all resources: money, manpower, time, effort… especially important, of course, if studies are inherently costly, as they are if units are complex collective individuals ” (1975: 149-150, emphasis added).

Limitations

Single case study analysis has, however, been subject to a number of criticisms, the most common of which concern the inter-related issues of methodological rigour, researcher subjectivity, and external validity. With regard to the first point, the prototypical view here is that of Zeev Maoz (2002: 164-165), who suggests that “the use of the case study absolves the author from any kind of methodological considerations. Case studies have become in many cases a synonym for freeform research where anything goes”. The absence of systematic procedures for case study research is something that Yin (2009: 14-15) sees as traditionally the greatest concern due to a relative absence of methodological guidelines. As the previous section suggests, this critique seems somewhat unfair; many contemporary case study practitioners – and representing various strands of IR theory – have increasingly sought to clarify and develop their methodological techniques and epistemological grounding (Bennett and Elman, 2010: 499-500).

A second issue, again also incorporating issues of construct validity, concerns that of the reliability and replicability of various forms of single case study analysis. This is usually tied to a broader critique of qualitative research methods as a whole. However, whereas the latter obviously tend toward an explicitly-acknowledged interpretive basis for meanings, reasons, and understandings:

“quantitative measures appear objective, but only so long as we don’t ask questions about where and how the data were produced… pure objectivity is not a meaningful concept if the goal is to measure intangibles [as] these concepts only exist because we can interpret them” (Berg and Lune, 2010: 340).

The question of researcher subjectivity is a valid one, and it may be intended only as a methodological critique of what are obviously less formalised and researcher-independent methods (Verschuren, 2003). Owen (1994) and Layne’s (1994) contradictory process tracing results of interdemocratic war-avoidance during the Anglo-American crisis of 1861 to 1863 – from liberal and realist standpoints respectively – are a useful example. However, it does also rest on certain assumptions that can raise deeper and potentially irreconcilable ontological and epistemological issues. There are, regardless, plenty such as Bent Flyvbjerg (2006: 237) who suggest that the case study contains no greater bias toward verification than other methods of inquiry, and that “on the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification”.

The third and arguably most prominent critique of single case study analysis is the issue of external validity or generalisability. How is it that one case can reliably offer anything beyond the particular? “We always do better (or, in the extreme, no worse) with more observation as the basis of our generalization”, as King et al write; “in all social science research and all prediction, it is important that we be as explicit as possible about the degree of uncertainty that accompanies out prediction” (1994: 212). This is an unavoidably valid criticism. It may be that theories which pass a single crucial case study test, for example, require rare antecedent conditions and therefore actually have little explanatory range. These conditions may emerge more clearly, as Van Evera (1997: 51-54) notes, from large-N studies in which cases that lack them present themselves as outliers exhibiting a theory’s cause but without its predicted outcome. As with the case of Indian democratisation above, it would logically be preferable to conduct large-N analysis beforehand to identify that state’s non-representative nature in relation to the broader population.

There are, however, three important qualifiers to the argument about generalisation that deserve particular mention here. The first is that with regard to an idiographic single-outcome case study, as Eckstein notes, the criticism is “mitigated by the fact that its capability to do so [is] never claimed by its exponents; in fact it is often explicitly repudiated” (1975: 134). Criticism of generalisability is of little relevance when the intention is one of particularisation. A second qualifier relates to the difference between statistical and analytical generalisation; single case studies are clearly less appropriate for the former but arguably retain significant utility for the latter – the difference also between explanatory and exploratory, or theory-testing and theory-building, as discussed above. As Gerring puts it, “theory confirmation/disconfirmation is not the case study’s strong suit” (2004: 350). A third qualification relates to the issue of case selection. As Seawright and Gerring (2008) note, the generalisability of case studies can be increased by the strategic selection of cases. Representative or random samples may not be the most appropriate, given that they may not provide the richest insight (or indeed, that a random and unknown deviant case may appear). Instead, and properly used , atypical or extreme cases “often reveal more information because they activate more actors… and more basic mechanisms in the situation studied” (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Of course, this also points to the very serious limitation, as hinted at with the case of India above, that poor case selection may alternatively lead to overgeneralisation and/or grievous misunderstandings of the relationship between variables or processes (Bennett and Elman, 2006a: 460-463).

As Tim May (2011: 226) notes, “the goal for many proponents of case studies […] is to overcome dichotomies between generalizing and particularizing, quantitative and qualitative, deductive and inductive techniques”. Research aims should drive methodological choices, rather than narrow and dogmatic preconceived approaches. As demonstrated above, there are various advantages to both idiographic and nomothetic single case study analyses – notably the empirically-rich, context-specific, holistic accounts that they have to offer, and their contribution to theory-building and, to a lesser extent, that of theory-testing. Furthermore, while they do possess clear limitations, any research method involves necessary trade-offs; the inherent weaknesses of any one method, however, can potentially be offset by situating them within a broader, pluralistic mixed-method research strategy. Whether or not single case studies are used in this fashion, they clearly have a great deal to offer.

References 

Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. (2012) ‘Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practice’, Simons Papers in Security and Development, No. 21/2012, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University: Vancouver.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006a) ‘Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods’, Annual Review of Political Science , 9, 455-476.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006b) ‘Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence’, Political Analysis , 14, 3, 250-267.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2007) ‘Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield’, Comparative Political Studies , 40, 2, 170-195.

Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2010) Case Study Methods. In C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations . Oxford University Press: Oxford. Ch. 29.

Berg, B. and Lune, H. (2012) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences . Pearson: London.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods . Oxford University Press: Oxford.

David, M. and Sutton, C. D. (2011) Social Research: An Introduction . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

Diamond, J. (1992) ‘Economic development and democracy reconsidered’, American Behavioral Scientist , 35, 4/5, 450-499.

Eckstein, H. (1975) Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, and P. Foster (eds) Case Study Method . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry , 12, 2, 219-245.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz . Basic Books Inc: New York.

Gerring, J. (2004) ‘What is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?’, American Political Science Review , 98, 2, 341-354.

Gerring, J. (2006a) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Gerring, J. (2006b) ‘Single-Outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer’, International Sociology , 21, 5, 707-734.

Gerring, J. (2007) ‘Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?’, Comparative Political Studies , 40, 3, 231-253.

King, G., Keohane, R. O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research . Princeton University Press: Chichester.

Layne, C. (1994) ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace’, International Security , 19, 2, 5-49.

Levy, J. S. (2008) ‘Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference’, Conflict Management and Peace Science , 25, 1-18.

Lipset, S. M. (1959) ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, The American Political Science Review , 53, 1, 69-105.

Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge . University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

MacMillan, A. (2008) ‘Deviant Democratization in India’, Democratization , 15, 4, 733-749.

Maoz, Z. (2002) Case study methodology in international studies: from storytelling to hypothesis testing. In F. P. Harvey and M. Brecher (eds) Evaluating Methodology in International Studies . University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process . Open University Press: Maidenhead.

Owen, J. M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security , 19, 2, 87-125.

Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly , 61, 2, 294-308.

Stake, R. E. (2008) Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry . Sage Publications: Los Angeles. Ch. 17.

Van Evera, S. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science . Cornell University Press: Ithaca.

Verschuren, P. J. M. (2003) ‘Case study as a research strategy: some ambiguities and opportunities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 6, 2, 121-139.

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods . SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

[1] The paper follows convention by differentiating between ‘International Relations’ as the academic discipline and ‘international relations’ as the subject of study.

[2] There is some similarity here with Stake’s (2008: 445-447) notion of intrinsic cases, those undertaken for a better understanding of the particular case, and instrumental ones that provide insight for the purposes of a wider external interest.

[3] These may be unique in the idiographic sense, or in nomothetic terms as an exception to the generalising suppositions of either probabilistic or deterministic theories (as per deviant cases, below).

[4] Although there are “philosophical hurdles to mount”, according to Bennett and Checkel, there exists no a priori reason as to why process tracing (as typically grounded in scientific realism) is fundamentally incompatible with various strands of positivism or interpretivism (2012: 18-19). By extension, it can therefore be incorporated by a range of contemporary mainstream IR theories.

— Written by: Ben Willis Written at: University of Plymouth Written for: David Brockington Date written: January 2013

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Identity in International Conflicts: A Case Study of the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Imperialism’s Legacy in the Study of Contemporary Politics: The Case of Hegemonic Stability Theory
• Recreating a Nation’s Identity Through Symbolism: A Chinese Case Study
• Ontological Insecurity: A Case Study on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Jerusalem
• Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: A Case Study of ETA
• A Critical Assessment of Eco-Marxism: A Ghanaian Case Study

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

25% Off Benzinga's Most Powerful Trading Tools

Traders Win More with Benzinga's Exclusive News and Squawk

• Personal Finance Accounts Best Credit Cards Best Financial Advisors Best Savings Accounts Apps Best Banking Apps Best Stock Trading Software Robinhood Alternatives TurboTax Alternatives Brokers Brokerage Account Taxes Brokers for Bonds Brokers for Index Funds Brokers for Options Trading Brokers for Short Selling Compare Online Brokers Forex Brokers Futures Brokers High-Leverage Forex Brokers MetaTrader 5 Brokers Stock Brokers Stock Brokers For Beginners
• Insurance Car Best Car Insurance Rental Car Insurance Motorcycle Best Motorcycle Insurance Seasonal Insurance Vision Best Vision Insurance Types of Vision Insurance Vision Insurance For Kids Vision Insurance For Seniors Health Affordable Health Insurance Best Health Insurance Companies Individual Health Insurance Self-employed Health Insurance House Earthquake Insurance Flood Insurance Homeowners Insurance Mobile Homes Moving Insurance Renters Insurance Sewer Line Dental Affordable Dental Insurance Best Dental Insurance Dental Insurance With No Annual Maximum Dental Insurance With No Waiting Period Kids Dental Insurance Medicare Compare Medicare Plans Cost of Hospital Stays Life Term Life Insurance Business Best Business Insurance Pet Best Pet Insurance
• Investing Penny Stocks Best EV Penny Stocks Best Penny Stocks Penny Stocks Under 10 Cents Penny Stocks With Dividends Futures Best Futures Trading Software Futures to Trade Futures Trading Courses Strategies Trading Platforms for E-Mini Futures Stocks Best Stock Charts Best Stocks Under $50 Best Stocks Under $100 Best Swing Trade Stocks Best Time to Trade Cash App Stocks How to Invest Stock Market Scanners Stock Market Simulators Stocks to Day Trade Forex Forex Demo Accounts Forex Robots Forex Signals Forex Trading Apps Forex Trading Software How to Trade Forex Making Money Trading Forex Trading Courses Trading Strategies Options Options to Buy Options Trading Apps Options Trading Books Options Trading Courses Paper Trading Swing Trading Options Trading Examples Trading Simulators Trading Software Trading Day Trading Apps Day Trading Books Day Trading Courses Day Trading Software Day Trading Taxes Prop Trading Firms Trading Chat Rooms Trading Strategies Alternative investing Alternative Investment Platforms Best REITs Best Alternative Investments Best Cards to Collect Best Gold IRAs Investing in Precious Metals Investing in Startups Real Estate Crowdfunding ETFs Commercial Real Estate ETFs International ETFs Monthly Dividing ETFs
• Mortgage Best Mortgage Companies FHA Lenders First Time Buyers HELOC & Refinancing Lenders for Self-Employed People Lenders That Do Not Require Tax Returns Online Mortgage Lenders
• Crypto Best Crypto Apps Business Crypto Accounts Crypto Day Trading Crypto Exchanges Crypto Scanners Crypto Screeners Earning Interest on Crypto Get Free Crypto How to Trade Crypto Is Bitcoin a Good Investment?

What Is Trip Cancellation Insurance?

Americans spend a lot of time and money planning vacations and travel. Transportation, accommodations, food and tourist activities consume much of their travel budgets. But what happens to those expenses when you need to postpone or cancel a trip because of unforeseen events?

Trip cancellation insurance offers at least partial compensation for travel expenses you’ve paid for before your journey. This guide looks at some of the basic features of trip cancellation insurance, the options you have and how a policy works.

Understanding Trip Cancellation Insurance

Trip cancellation insurance vs. trip insurance, what does trip cancellation insurance cover, what is not covered, what is “cancel for any reason” trip insurance, how much does trip cancellation insurance cost, case study for trip cancellation insurance, pros and cons, how to get trip cancellation insurance.

• Compare the Best Trip Cancellation Insurance From Benzinga's Top Providers

Trip Cancellation Insurance: A Sense of Financial Security

Frequently asked questions.

Trip cancellation insurance covers many expenses that could arise if you need to cancel a trip for unforeseen circumstances. You can purchase insurance when you book your trip or a short time after. The coverage period runs from the time you book travel plans to the beginning of your trip.

Some of the typical prepaid expenses that trip cancellation insurance may address include:

• Airline or transportation tickets
• Tour packages
• Hotel and lodging accommodations
• Rental vehicles
• Event or theme park tickets
• Cruise reservations

Standard trip cancellation insurance policies reimburse a percentage of prepaid expenses up to certain limits. The reimbursement amount hinges on the coverage options you choose.

To get compensated for your cancellation, you’ll have to file a claim with your insurance provider and provide proof of the reasons for cancellation. You may be asked to show paperwork, such as medical records, death certificates, proof of event cancellation and other supporting information.

Trip cancellation insurance can be part of an overall trip insurance policy. It strictly covers expenses that emerge from the act of cancellation, including penalties and administrative costs.

A general trip insurance policy can cover a wider range of incidents. For instance, it might cover trip interruptions, travel medical insurance, loss or delay of baggage, car rental, emergency medical evacuation and more.

Some of the most typical events that trip cancellation insurance addresses are as follows:

• Medical emergency or illness
• Death in the family
• Natural disasters at the destination
• Terrorist attacks or civil unrest
• Jury duty or court subpoena
• Documented theft of passports or visas
• Evacuation orders at your destination
• Damages to the policyholder’s residence due to fire, flood or other events
• Bankruptcy of named travel suppliers

Other events beyond your control may be included in a trip cancellation policy as well.

Typical trip cancellation insurance doesn’t cover events that the traveler foresees or anticipates. Events and conditions that are usually not covered include:

• Pre-existing medical conditions the traveler didn’t disclose
• Plan changes for personal reasons
• Failure to obtain passports or visas
• Uncovered financial circumstances such as job loss
• Travel against the advice of doctors
• Travel supplier’s refusal to refund or change plans unless they file for bankruptcy
• Cancellation due to the traveler’s participation in illegal or criminal activity
• Failure to allow enough time for travel

Take time to ask your insurance agent and read the fine print of your policy to learn what it does and doesn’t cover.

Cancel For Any Reason (CFAR) trip insurance is exactly what it sounds like: an optional policy upgrade that covers trip cancellations for any cause. It gives travelers more flexibility in protecting against financial loss. A CFAR policy offers at least partial reimbursement for travel cancellation expenses, but it can be more expensive than a standard trip cancellation policy.

Trip cancellation insurance premiums vary according to several factors, such as:

• Age of traveler
• Number of people traveling
• Length of trip
• Certain travel expenses
• Insurance plan options
• Coverage limits

As a guideline, you can expect the premium for trip cancellation insurance to cost between 4% and 10% of your total trip cost.

To illustrate how trip cancellation insurance works, let’s look at a hypothetical case study. Kate has booked a dream vacation to Cancun, Mexico. The total cost of her trip, including accommodations, flights and activities, comes to about $5,000. 

On top of her trip insurance, Kate purchases cancellation insurance for $250. The policy covers 75% of the total trip cost. Ten days before Kate is scheduled to leave, her mother falls seriously ill and needs round-the-clock care. Kate decides to postpone her vacation to Cancun to stay with her family for support during her mother’s illness.

Kate files a claim with her insurance provider. The carrier reviews her claim and approves her reimbursement. Kate receives 75% of her overall trip cost, a total of $3,750. The remaining $1,250 comes out of Kate’s pocket, but that’s far better than forfeiting the entire $5,000.

There are many benefits to trip cancellation insurance. However, some disadvantages may cause you to rethink buying a policy.

Some of the advantages of trip cancellation insurance include:

• Financial protection against unforeseen events
• Flexibility of policy offerings, including CFAR insurance
• Protection against travel suppliers’ financial or business struggles
• Coverage for travel interruptions or delays
• Emergency assistance coverage in certain policies

The main benefit of trip cancellation insurance is a sense of relief that your finances won’t take a hard hit if you need to cancel or reschedule your trip.

Trip cancellation insurance may not be entirely feasible for several reasons, including:

• High premium cost
• Limitations or restrictions in coverage
• Excessive documentation needed to file claims
• Only partial reimbursement of your overall trip costs
• Exclusions for predictable events, such as political unrest, weather problems and travel advisories

Read the fine print or ask your agent to verify what events are covered or excluded from your trip cancellation insurance.

Purchasing trip cancellation insurance is similar to obtaining other types of insurance. Many major international insurance companies offer coverage as part of an umbrella trip policy. Alternatively, they’ll offer it as a standalone policy. Vendors that provide trip cancellation insurance can include:

• Travel suppliers and providers
• Insurance companies
• Credit card companies
• Travel comparison websites
• Employer benefits packages

Especially with employer benefits, check to make sure you’re not already covered for trip cancellation insurance before lining up a new policy.

Compare the Best Trip Cancellation Insurance From Benzinga’s Top Providers

What providers offer the most complete trip cancellation insurance policies? This table outlines some of Benzinga’s preferred carriers.

This provides a broad overview of your policy provisions and does not revise or amend the policy. Insurance coverages are underwritten by Arch Insurance Company, NAIC #11150, under policy series LTP 2013 and amendments thereto. Plans are offered and disseminated by registered travel retailers on behalf of Arch Insurance Solutions Inc., a licensed travel insurance producer* (CA License #0I18111, TX License #1787195). Both the travel insurance producer and the underwriter referenced above may be reached at 1-844-872-4163. Your policy is the contract that specifically and fully describes your coverage. Certain terms, conditions, restrictions and exclusions apply and coverages may vary in certain states. Please refer to your policy for detailed terms and conditions. Consumer Disclosures can be found at: https://www.roamright.com/disclosures/. Privacy policy can be found at: https://www.roamright.com/roamright-website-privacy-policy/ *Plans are solicited by licensed producers in NY and HI. 

Having to delay or cancel a vacation is usually a major disappointment, but it’s often unavoidable. Trip cancellation insurance can relieve at least some of the financial burden that those last-minute changes can impose. Before your next extended vacation, check to see whether trip cancellation insurance makes sense for you and your traveling companions.

Can I buy just trip cancellation insurance?

Yes, you can take out trip cancellation insurance as a standalone policy

Is trip cancellation insurance worth it?

If you stand to lose money due to unforeseen circumstances, it probably is worth it. However, if you can make changes to or cancel your trip without penalties, you may not need trip cancellation insurance.

Can you buy trip cancellation insurance after booking?

Yes. However, there may be limitations or exclusions that a pre-booking policy might not have.

COMMUNITY CASE STUDY article

Do asymptomatic stec-long-term carriers need to be isolated or decolonized new evidence from a community case study and concepts in favor of an individualized strategy.

• 1 Department of Medicine I, Division of Gastroenterology and Nephrology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
• 2 Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
• 3 Institute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, Department for Infection Prevention and Control, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Asymptomatic long-term carriers of Shigatoxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are regarded as potential source of STEC-transmission. The prevention of outbreaks via onward spread of STEC is a public health priority. Accordingly, health authorities are imposing far-reaching restrictions on asymptomatic STEC carriers in many countries. Various STEC strains may cause severe hemorrhagic colitis complicated by life-threatening hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), while many endemic strains have never been associated with HUS. Even though antibiotics are generally discouraged in acute diarrheal STEC infection, decolonization with short-course azithromycin appears effective and safe in long-term shedders of various pathogenic strains. However, most endemic STEC-strains have a low pathogenicity and would most likely neither warrant antibiotic decolonization therapy nor justify social exclusion policies. A risk-adapted individualized strategy might strongly attenuate the socio-economic burden and has recently been proposed by national health authorities in some European countries. This, however, mandates clarification of strain-specific pathogenicity, of the risk of human-to-human infection as well as scientific evidence of social restrictions. Moreover, placebo-controlled prospective interventions on efficacy and safety of, e.g., azithromycin for decolonization in asymptomatic long-term STEC-carriers are reasonable. In the present community case study, we report new observations in long-term shedding of various STEC strains and review the current evidence in favor of risk-adjusted concepts.

Introduction

Food-borne outbreaks of severe hemorrhagic enterocolitis complicated by life-threatening hemolytic uremic syndrom (HUS) are an utterly devastating incident and a major challenge for public health ( 1 , 2 ). The largest outbreak caused 3,816 documented infections in Northern Germany in 2011, including 845 cases of HUS ( 3 ). It was mediated by the Shigatoxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) strain O104:H4 and related to the consumption of contaminated sprouts. This strain harbored a phage encoding the highly pathogenic Shigatoxin type 2 (Stx 2) and expressed virulence factors of both the enterohemorrhagic (EHEC) and enteroaggregative (EAggEC) E. coli phenotypes. The latter might have mediated the high rate of prolonged shedding (i.e., >28 days) of viable STEC after recovery from acute diarrhea ( 4 , 5 ). Infection prevention measures like sanitary separation of patients during enterohemorrhagic diarrheal disease are undisputed and essential to prevent human-to-human spread. However, the role of asymptomatic STEC carriers as a potential source of new outbreaks is controversial ( 5 – 8 ). Still, health authorities in most western countries are imposing far-reaching restrictions on STEC carriers. Even lenient measures like separated sanitary facilities exert psychosocial pressure and stigmatization. Ban from work, school or kindergarten might inflict substantial economic burden on the affected families and employers. Therefore, in the case of long-term STEC-shedding decolonization appears highly desirable.

Several case series suggested that antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic STEC-carriage may be an effective and safe eradication method ( 9 , 10 ). In a pilot trial we previously documented that azithromycin was highly effective for the sustained decolonization of post-symptomatic long-term carriers of the highly pathogenic STEC O104:H4 outbreak strain ( 11 ). Antibiotic rehabilitation from long-term STEC carriage could stop both the risk of person-to-person transmission and set aside the social impact of exclusion policies. However, the application of antibiotics to clinically asymptomatic persons always needs appropriate justification. Moreover, antibiotic therapy is commonly discouraged in STEC-disease ( 12 – 14 ), since some reports have raised concerns about an inherent potential of some antibiotics to enhance Stx release and thus HUS development mainly in STEC O157.

Over the past two decades, the increasing use of syndromic multi-pathogen assays in diarrhea that detect Stx or their encoding genes has markedly increased the sporadic detection of colonization with endemic STEC strains independent of clinically overt disease or even outbreaks. This surge in detection raises questions from physicians, institutions, and public health officials about reasonable and practical measures to prevent secondary transmission. STEC is genetically a very heterogeneous and large group. The spectrum of virulence is governed in part by the subtype of Stx expressed (Stx1 or 2), and by additional pathogenicity factors, including genes encoding intestinal adherence. Different E. coli strains have varying pathogenic potential as proposed by the seropathotype concept ( 15 ). Moreover, the risk of long-term shedding with human-to-human transmission and, hence, the benefit from antibiotic decolonization needs strain-specific stratification. Most endemic STEC-strains have a low pathogenicity and have never been reported in the context of outbreaks or the development of HUS [for review: ( 10 , 16 – 19 )]. Most likely, they would neither justify antibiotic decolonization therapy nor substantiate social exclusion stipulations. Return-to-work and return-to-school polices tailored to the virulence of the STEC strain may lessen the personal and socioeconomic burden in conditions of asymptomatic long-term shedding of low-virulence organisms.

Therefore, in asymptomatic long-term STEC carriers an individualized risk-adapted approach appears mandatory. Such strategies were recently advocated by several national health authorities ( Figure 1 ). However, the implementation in daily routine lags behind these recommendations.

Figure 1 . Updated recommendations of German national health authorities (Robert-Koch-Institute) on readmittance to community facilities [adapted from Pörtner et al. ( 20 )].

Context of the community case study–population, programmatic details and core observations

Antibiotic eradication attempts, evidence from post-symptomatic long-term carriers of the highly pathogenic outbreak-related stec o104:h4.

Following the large food-borne outbreak of STEC O104:H4 in Northern Germany in 2011 ( 3 ) a considerable number of patients showed persistent STEC-carriage (i.e., >28 days) after recovery from acute STEC-infection ( 4 , 5 ). The high rate of long-term carriage was attributed to an enteroaggregative phenotype. Interestingly, STEC shedding was found to be promptly terminated by azithromycin administered as meningitis prophylaxis during off-label treatment with eculizumab in severe HUS-cases ( 11 ). Azithromycin is an approved therapy in diarrheal disease caused by enteroaggregative E. coli and was previously reported to reduce Stx-release in vitro ( 21 , 22 ). Therefore, as a proof of principle, we offered a 3-day course of oral azithromycin (500 mg/d) to 15 long-term carriers (> 28 d) who - though now asymptomatic - were restricted in their social or working life. After the 3-day course all had consistently negative stools without any HUS related symptoms ( 11 ). This observation required approval in a greater cohort of long-term carriers of STEC O104:H4.

Accordingly, we treated 27 additional cases, totaling n  = 42 long-term carriers with a history of acute STEC-enterocolitis and/or HUS. They all had completely recovered but – though being asymptomatic – showed persistent fecal STEC shedding beyond day 28 from the onset of diarrheal symptoms. Patients were referred to our outpatient clinic due to their individual burden of social and economic restrictions.

The decolonization protocol is visualized in Figure 2 . Details on microbiologic analysis are presented in the online supplement. Persistent STEC shedding was documented within the last 7 days prior to the decolonization attempt. The core efficiency parameter was the rate of sustained microbiological response vs. rate of relapse/persistence at 2–3 weeks after azithromycin treatment. The safety outcome comprised any clinical or laboratory signs of HUS and/or any other clinical adverse event.

Figure 2 . Treatment protocol for decolonization of STEC-long-term carriers with short course azithromycin.

The median duration from the onset of outbreak-related diarrheal symptoms to the start of decolonization therapy was 60 days (range 30–189, mean duration73.5 ± 39.4 days) in 39 of 42 persons of this cohort. The remaining three individuals, however, did not report a preceding diarrheal episode, but were eventually detected. E.g., one of them was found positive at screening as a household-contact about 10 days after his wife had developed STEC-diarrhea. It is unclear whether he had the same nutritional source of infection as his wife or had acquired a secondary person-to-person infection.

41 (98%) participants were successfully decolonized as confirmed by at least 3 negative stool samples within the subsequent 21 days. The median duration from acute symptom onset until first negative stool following the 3-day azithromycin course was 63 days (range 35–198). However, 1 person showed a relapse/recurrence of STEC-positivity after two samples had been negative. In this individual a second 3-day course of azithromycin was repeated after another 7 weeks of positive stool samples and then lead to prompt and sustained decolonization ( Figure 3 ). None of the subjects demonstrated any HUS-related clinical or laboratory deterioration. There were no adverse events apart from abdominal discomfort in two participants that lasted less than 2 days while continuing azithromycin.

Figure 3 . Line-list STEC O104:H4 cases; blue, time span of documented STEC shedding since symptom onset or first diagnosis until start of decolonization with azithromycin; red, time span until negative stool tests.

In this cohort of O104:H4 long-term carriers, individuals judged that their expected personal benefits from decolonization would far exceed the potential risk of adverse events. Some of them were at risk of losing their jobs after prolonged ban from work. One individual, e.g., was blocked from running his restaurant for weeks, another was suspended from his food-processing job for almost 3 months, one adolescent patient was not allowed to travel abroad as an au-pair and one child was banned from kindergarten for several weeks, which severely restrained its parents’ working life. One married couple first declined a decolonization attempt and then stayed at home for about 6 months awaiting spontaneous decolonization. As shown in the line-list ( Figure 3 ), they continued to be positive after 180 days, but even then, therapy with azithromycin promptly led to sustained decolonization.

Community case series of sporadic asymptomatic long-term carriers of endemic strains

Additionally, we collected sporadic community cases colonized with endemic non-O104:H4, non-O157 STEC over 10 years (2012–2021). All were incidentally detected, and they had no history of gastrointestinal disease or HUS, and none was associated with an outbreak. Therefore, the duration of shedding was undetermined, but all of these subjects had repeatedly been found STEC-positive since ≥28 days. They reported severe social restrictions inflicted by local public health authorities for several weeks or months. Nationwide, we encountered about 50 contacts for counseling initiated either by the colonized individuals, by their general practitioner or via public health office seeking advice for decolonization. We carefully discussed the individual pros and cons to perform a decolonization attempt with azithromycin. Some decided not to undergo a decolonization attempt. In other cases, information on the strain-serotype or the subtyping of Stx-1 vs. 2 were incomplete as such diagnostic workups are regularly not reimbursed by health insurance coverage. Therefore, we here report 21 sporadic asymptomatic long-term STEC-carriers with confirmed endemic non-O104 strains treated with azithromycin. Of these, 10 carried serotype O91:H14, a subtype with H14-flaggelin which has never been associated with STEC-outbreaks or HUS ( 23 ). During the last two decades the fraction of O91 strains has significantly increased, according to the German National Reference Centre for Enteric Bacterial Pathogens run by the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) ( 16 ). In 4 subjects we found serogroup O26, 2 harbored O113, and one was found positive for O15, O76, O146, O156, or O181, respectively. Patients decided that their individual burden of exclusion outweighed any potential risk of decolonization treatment. They took full responsibility for their decision to undergo the off-label decolonization attempt according to the above-mentioned protocol, and to perform safety checks. Decolonization was successful in all 21 individuals as determined by the family physician’s report of negative follow-up stool samples. None of them reported any signs of HUS or other significant adverse events.

Pros and cons of antibiotic therapy in STEC-disease and long-term shedding

Evidently, azithromycin is highly effective for the sustained decolonization of asymptomatic long-term STEC O104:H4 carriers as well as asymptomatic long-term shedders of endemic STEC strains. This approach appeared safe, since no HUS-related clinical or laboratory deterioration occurred. In contrast to these findings in asymptomatic long-term carriers, antibiotics are generally discouraged during STEC-related acute bloody diarrhea ( 12 – 14 ). In vitro , Stx production is boosted by sub-inhibitory concentrations of specific antibiotics. Data are available mainly for EHEC O157 and for two classes of antibiotics, the fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol (TMP/SMZ), which have repeatedly been shown to induce Stx production in vitro . This is plausible, as both antibiotics, targeting DNA-synthesis, induce the bacterial SOS stress response to DNA damage, which is linked to an increase in phage production and toxin release ( 24 – 26 ). Additionally, a retrospective analysis from the US FoodNet surveillance recently reported an augmented risk of HUS among children and adults with O157 diarrhea treated with β-lactams ( 14 ). For other strains, data were conflicting and hardly comparable due to different antibiotics at variable doses and variable susceptibility profiles. Currently, there is no rational to suggest alternative antibiotics without prior testing of antimicrobial resistance. Harm from antibiotic treatment has never been proven through randomized controlled trials, and observational studies suffer from biases such as greater likelihood of antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with more severe illness. During the O104-outbreak in 2011 the use of several antibiotics for concurrent reasons did not deteriorate clinical outcome according to an observational multicenter study ( 27 ).

Azithromycin, an antibiotic of the macrolide family, binds to the 50S subunit of the bacterial ribosome. Azithromycin inhibits protein synthesis including the production and release of Shiga toxin in vitro independent from its bacteriostatic effects ( 21 , 22 , 28 ). In addition, azithromycin has modulating effects on the Stx-induced inflammatory reaction on the vascular endothelium. Whether azithromycin could reduce the duration of diarrhea or protect against the development of HUS in highly pathogenic STEC is an unsolved question. Currently, there is no evidence that antibiotic treatment is harmful once HUS has developed. Studies on animal models showed a drastic reduction in HUS-related mortality. Nonetheless, we have to await the results of an ongoing clinical trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336516) of azithromycin therapy initiated during established HUS.

Moreover, we found no report on HUS-induction in asymptomatic long-term STEC-carriers receiving antibiotics for concurrent indications ( 10 ). Based on a recent meta-analysis including 10 clinical and 22 in vitro studies, as well as data from the Danish cohort of registered STEC infections, antibiotic treatment with protein and cell-wall synthesis inhibitors can be considered safe in chronic STEC-carriers when specific criteria regarding patient group, serotype and virulence profile are met ( 18 , 29 ). Case reports suggested that antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic STEC-carriage may be a safe eradication method for less virulent strains ( 9 , 10 ). This is confirmed by our present collection of anecdotic endemic cases.

In general, the advantages of antibiotic treatment must always be balanced against the disadvantages of short and long-term interference with the human intestinal microbiome. It is important to consider that the dissemination of plasmide-borne macrolide resistance may reduce the potential benefit of azithromycin for STEC decolonization, and determination of azithromycin MICs should be considered ( 30 ). Other treatment options especially in acute STEC disease, including Stx-receptor analogs, antibodies against LPS, use of probiotics as well as phages and vaccines, have been reviewed elsewhere ( 31 , 32 ). In brief, they did not provide novel successful concepts – neither for acute disease nor in asymptomatic long-term carriage.

Human-to-human transmission

The infectious potential of asymptomatic STEC shedding for human-to-human transmission is unclear. Present knowledge about person-to-person STEC-transmission is predominantly deduced from serogroup O157, a group that mainly affects young children. In childcare settings, secondary cases via human-to-human spread during active diarrhea are frequent and this is advocated as an important mechanism during outbreaks ( 33 ). During the acute diarrheal phase persons appear to be more likely to spread STEC than asymptomatic long-term shedders ( 6 , 7 ). In registries of STEC-O157 cases from England ( n  = 225 children <6 yrs), Scotland ( n  = 2.228 cases over 10 years) and the US secondary cases due to fecal-oral transmission occurred in 10–14% of all cases with confirmed acute enterocolitis. The mean time between onset in primary and secondary cases was about 8 days (range 3–24 days); pathogen transmission from asymptomatic O157-carriers was not observed ( 33 – 35 ). During the O104:H4 outbreak in 2011 only few cases of secondary human-to-human household transmission were reported. Most of them occurred early, i.e., during the acute diarrheal phase of the primary case ( 5 ); the risk of transmission from asymptomatic long-term STEC shedders appeared much lower. In a prospective post-outbreak surveillance in 2011 run by German health authorities in order to detect further infections after the outbreak’s end, 33 post-outbreak cases were recorded based on mandatory reporting from summer until the end of 2011. These post-outbreak cases occurred with decreasing frequency over the 6 months follow-up period and were clinically rather mild. Most of them had previous contact with known outbreak cases or were mediated by laboratory or nosocomial spread but were not related to sprout consumption ( 36 ). Evidently, the pathogenic outbreak strain STEC O104:H4 has the potential to prolong chains of human transmission, with long-term shedding being the most relevant risk factor. Still the number of secondary cases was low (< 1%) compared to the food-borne cases ( n  = 3.816). For endemic non-pathogenic STEC-strains there are no valid data on person-to-person transmission.

Strain specific pathogenicity factors for HUS-development and long-term shedding

Shiga-toxins and the adherence factor intimin (eae) /enterocyte effacement pathogenicity island are the main virulence factors of STEC. They cause the attaching and effacing lesions on infected epithelial cells. Moreover, expression of phage-encoded Stx-subtype 2a, 2c or 2d appears to be responsible for the intestinal vascular damage that characterizes STEC-mediated hemorrhagic enterocolitis and to induce the systemic complications like hemolysis, renal failure and neurologic deterioration seen in HUS. The O104:H4 outbreak strain harbored a phage encoding Stx2a, which is associated with the high rate of HUS observed. Stx-1 expression, in contrast, is in general not associated with HUS. Genomic plasticity and horizontal gene transfer enable the emergence of STEC strains with additionally acquired virulence properties. The Stx gene distribution changed, for example, from only 7% of STEC O26:H11 harboring Stx2 in 1999 to 59% in 2013 ( 37 ). Therefore, it is not possible to predict the emergence of „new‟ highly pathogenic STEC types based solely on the presence of any unspecified Stx or by focusing on a restricted panel of serogroups. Next to molecular strain-typing, whole-genome sequencing, including differentiation of Stx1 and 2 allelic variants, might help to assess the risk inherent to long-term STEC carriage. Further molecular details have been discussed elsewhere ( 15 – 19 , 38 ).

Differential bacterial mechanisms of intestinal adherence and host factors may result in variable shedding dynamics of diverse STEC-strains. In some individuals long-term STEC carriage was documented for up to 1 year. STEC O104:H4, the outbreak strain in Germany in 2011 ( 3 ) expressed virulence factors of enteroaggregative (EAggEC) phenotype attributing to a high rate of persistent STEC-carriage (i.e., >28 days) after recovery from acute STEC-infection ( 4 , 5 ). STEC O157 – another highly pathogenic serogroup which is primarily responsible for outbreaks and severe HUS in children – in contrast, rarely persists for >28 days ( 39 ). For endemic STEC which are incidentally detected in asymptomatic carriers without antecedent diarrheal disease or HUS, the period of shedding is unknown.

Pros and cons of social restriction policies

In many countries worldwide far-reaching restrictions are enunciated by health authorities for those asymptomatic STEC carriers who might constitute a potential risk of infecting other persons or contaminating food items irrespective of the strain. This sounds justified for highly virulent strains shed by persons in food-sensible context. However, in cases of prolonged shedding, social restrictions beyond personal hygiene can be onerous. Exclusion of asymptomatic persons from normal daily life with the risk of losing their jobs imposes a severe economic burden in addition to psychosocial pressure and stigmatization. Given the increased detection rate of endemic STEC, risk-adjusted modifications appear mandatory. In Denmark, subtyping of Stx is routinely integrated into public health strategies since 2015 in order to focus follow-up surveillance to patients infected with high-risk strains ( 18 ). Recently, in Norway and Germany the official rules for re-admittance of STEC-carriers to work, to school or kindergarten were greatly revised by the legal health authorities ( 20 , 40 ). The new recommendations adhere to a strain-specific stratification. In Germany, patients infected with STEC expressing Stx-1 and sporadic cases of asymptomatic colonization with endemic strains, e.g., do not need any further fecal controls and should no longer suffer from restricted daily social interaction ( Figure 1 ). Syndromic PCR panels that do not differentiate between Stx1 and 2, however, provide inadequate information. In our collection of endemic STEC long-term carriers, subjects reported ongoing exclusion policies even though their subtyping indicated no substantial pathogenic threat, mostly before 2020. According to the new national standards, most of them would retrospectively not require any precautionary restraints and therefore would no longer apply for eradication with azithromycin today.

Epidemiologically, all large STEC-outbreaks over the last 50 years were food-borne. Next to contaminated vegetable, products of domestic and wild animals served as STEC-vehicles. Ruminants, especially cattle, are regarded as important sources of food-borne STEC-transmission to humans. STEC strains persisting in cattle for longer periods can serve as gene reservoirs that supply E. coli with virulence factors, thereby generating new potential outbreak strains. Moreover, there are multiple reports from all over the world showing a considerable prevalence of plasmid-borne antimicrobial (multidrug) resistance of various STEC strains in domestic and even in hunted wildlife animals. This clearly precludes benefit from the broad use of antibiotics to prevent outbreaks. Given the globalization of food chains and human travel, resistance patterns in far distant regions might well have relevance on public health elsewhere, nowadays. The O104:H4 outbreak in 2011, e.g., was mediated by contaminated sprouts imported from overseas, and this strain was resistant to ß-lactams (ESBL), tetracycline, streptomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. In contrast, there are no reports on outbreaks that were triggered from asymptomatic human long-term STEC carriers. To the best of our literature search, there is no epidemiologic evidence of any public health benefit from social exclusion policies for asymptomatic long-term STEC-carriers. Public health attempts to reduce the human risk for acquiring STEC infections should therefore mainly address strategies to control persisting STEC strains in the food-chain. Animal carriage of STEC is reduced, e.g., through vaccination and improved farm practices ( 41 ). To decently review the large body of scientific literature concerning this highly relevant veterinary issue is far beyond the scope of this article. In summary, preventing STEC transmission from animals and nutritional environments to humans includes appropriate food preparation, personal hand hygiene, control of environmental contamination, and food and water quality. This might be much more effective than the social exclusion of asymptomatic human carriers of low-virulent strains ( 42 ).

Limitations

The conclusions drawn from this community case study are inevitably subject to some limitations. The German O104-STEC-outbreak in 2011 was one of the largest worldwide, and likewise, our cohort of long-term-carriers decolonized with azithromycin is the largest reported. Still the number of cases in our decolonization cohorts is low to conclude strict recommendations. To overcome the substantial lack of scientific evidence, central registries are needed. They might aim at systematically determining strain-specific risks of human-to-human transmission in asymptomatic long-term carriers as well as benefit vs. harm from social restriction. Finally, antibiotic decolonization approaches need confirmation in prospective controlled studies. This includes a more in depth specification of the optimum follow-up period after decolonization to rule-out relapses.

Recommendation for an individualized risk-adjusted strategy

The above issues endorse the recent concept of an individualized approach that takes strain-specific risks and personal and public threats into account. Molecular strain-profiling in long-term STEC carriage would trigger stringent hygiene measures reserved to high-risk strains and limit unnecessary precautionary measures in low-virulent STEC. This, however, mandates molecular microbiologic diagnostics beyond the routine of simply detecting Stx by ELISA or by PCR ( Figure 1 ). This work-up is still not regularly reimbursed by health insurance policies. On a public health level, such molecular stratification, however, might well be cost-effective.

From a clinical point of view, the previous dogma that antibiotics are absolutely contraindicated in STEC infection needs to be revised. To date, antibiotics should be handled cautiously in patients with acute bloody diarrhea caused by STEC, especially if caused by STEC O157. In long-term shedding of highly virulent STEC, decolonization by a short course of oral azithromycin might offer an appropriate option. Our community case study confirms that a 3-day course is highly effective and safe. Decolonization with azithromycin could shorten the duration of human STEC shedding, and thereby reduce the risk of transmission and the need of prolonged restrictions. The potential benefit is underlined by the evidence of some human-to-human post-outbreak transmissions during the 6 months of national surveillance after the O104:H4 outbreak in 2011 ( 36 ). Asymptomatic carriers of endemic non-virulent STEC strains, in contrast neither need prolonged restrictions, nor fecal follow-up testing, and therefore, do not require antibiotic decolonization treatment ( 20 ). Strain-specific risk stratification allows for a risk-adjusted individual strategy. Together with our eradication approach reserved to high-risk pathogens, this could modify public health surveillance, enable an earlier return to normal life for many long-term carriers, and hence reduce the individual and socioeconomic burden of long-term STEC-carriage.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because community case study, part of it was interventional (with ethical approval), part of it was rather observational (not approved). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

FS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SH: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft. JK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. JR: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. MN: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1364664/full#supplementary-material

1. Freedman, SB, van de Kar, NC, and Tarr, PI. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and the hemolytic-uremic syndrome. N Engl J Med . (2023) 389:1402–14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra2108739

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Travert, B, Rafat, C, Mariani, P, Cointe, A, Dossier, A, Coppo, P, et al. Shiga toxin-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: specificities of adult patients and implications for critical care management. Toxins . (2021) 13:306. doi: 10.3390/toxins13050306

3. Robert Koch Institute, Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology. Report: Final presentation and evaluation of epidemiological findings in the EHEC O104:H4 outbreak, Germany 2011. Berlin (2011), Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/88 .

Google Scholar

4. Vonberg, RP, Höhle, M, Aepfelbacher, M, Bange, FC, Belmar Campos, C, Claussen, K, et al. Duration of fecal shedding of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O104:H4 in patients infected during the 2011 outbreak in Germany: a multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis . (2013) 56:1132–40. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis1218

5. Sin, MA, Takla, A, Flieger, A, Prager, R, and Fruth, A. Tietze E et al carrier prevalence, secondary household transmission, and long-term shedding in 2 districts during the Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak in Germany, 2011. J Infect Dis . (2013) 207:432–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis702

6. Kintz, E, Brainard, J, Hooper, L, and Hunter, P. Transmission pathways for sporadic Shiga-toxin producing E. coli infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyg Environ Health . (2017) 220:57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.10.011

7. Luini, MV, Colombo, R, Dodaro, A, Vignati, C, Masia, C, Arghittu, M, et al. Family clusters of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infection: an overlooked source of transmission. Data from the ItalKid-Hus network. Pediatr Infect Dis J . (2021) 40:1–5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002877

8. Mody, RK, and Griffin, PM. Editorial commentary: fecal shedding of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli : what should be done to prevent secondary cases? Clin Infect Dis . (2013) 56:1141–4. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis1222

9. Jensen, C, Schiellerup, P, Olsen, K, Scheutz, F, Petersen, E, Gerner-Smidt, P, et al. Antimicrobial treatment of asymptomatic carriers of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli : an empiric study. Scand J Infect Dis . (2005) 37:61–3. doi: 10.1080/00365540510026427

10. Agger, M, Scheutz, F, Villumsen, S, Mølbak, K, and Petersen, AM. Antibiotic treatment of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) infection: a systematic review and a proposal. J Antimicrob Chemother . (2015) 70:2440–6. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv162

11. Nitschke, M, Sayk, F, Härtel, C, Roseland, RT, Hauswaldt, S, Steinhoff, J, et al. Association between azithromycin therapy and duration of bacterial shedding among patients with Shiga toxin-producing enteroaggregative Escherichia coli O104:H4. JAMA . (2012) 307:1046–52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.264

12. Freedman, SB, Xie, J, Neufeld, MS, Hamilton, WL, Hartling, L, and Tarr, PI. Alberta provincial pediatric enteric infection team (APPETITE), et al. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infection, antibiotics, and risk of developing hemolytic uremic syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis . (2016) 62:1251–8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw099

13. Tarr, PI, and Freedman, SB. Why antibiotics should not be used to treat Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections. Curr Opin Gastroenterol . (2022) 38:30–8. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000798

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Mody, RK, Hoekstra, RM, Kendall Scott, M, Dunn, J, Smith, K, Tobin-D'Angelo, M, et al. Risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome related to treatment of Escherichia coli O157 infection with different antimicrobial classes. Microorganisms . (2021) 9:1997. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9091997

15. Karmali, MA, Mascarenhas, M, Shen, S, Ziebell, K, Johnson, S, Reid-Smith, R, et al. Association of genomic O island 122 of Escherichia coli EDL 933 with verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli seropathotypes that are linked to epidemic and/or serious disease. J Clin Microbiol . (2003) 41:4930–40. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.11.4930-4940.2003

16. Fruth, A, Prager, R, Tietze, E, Rabsch, W, and Flieger, A. Molecular epidemiological view on Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli causing human disease in Germany: diversity, prevalence, and outbreaks. Int J Med Microbiol . (2015) 305:697–704. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2015.08.020l

17. Knobloch, JK, Niemann, S, Kohl, TA, Lindner, U, Nitschke, M, Sayk, F, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for risk assessment of long-term Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli . Emerg Infect Dis . (2014) 20:732–3. doi: 10.3201/eid2004.131782

18. Werber, D, and Scheutz, F. The importance of integrating genetic strain information for managing cases of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli infection. Epidemiol Infect . (2019) 147:e264–3. doi: 10.1017/S0950268819001602

19. Yang, X, Wu, Y, Liu, Q, Sun, H, Luo, M, Xiong, Y, et al. Genomic characteristics of Stx 2e-producing Escherichia coli strains derived from humans, animals, and meats. Pathogens . (2021) 10:1551. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10121551

20. Pörtner, K, Fruth, A, Flieger, A, Middendorf-Bauchart, B, Mellmann, A, and Falkenhorst, G. Überarbeitung der RKI Empfehlungen für die Wiederzulassung zu Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen gemäß § 34 IfSG nach EHEC-Infektion. Epid Bull . (2019) 47:506–9. doi: 10.25646/6414

21. Ohara, T, Kojio, S, Taneike, I, Nakagawa, S, Gondaira, F, Tamura, Y, et al. Effects of azithromycin on Shiga toxin production by Escherichia coli and subsequent host inflammatory response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . (2002) 46:3478–83. doi: 10.1128/AAC.46.11.3478-3483.2002

22. Bielaszewska, M, Idelevich, EA, Zhang, W, Bauwens, A, Schaumburg, F, Mellmann, A, et al. Effects of antibiotics on Shiga-toxin 2 production and bacteriophage induction by epidemic Escherichia coli O104:H4 strain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . (2012) 56:3277–82. doi: 10.1128/AAC.06315-11

23. Bielaszewska, M, Stoewe, F, Fruth, A, Zhang, W, Prager, R, Brockmeyer, J, et al. Shiga toxin, cytolethal distending toxin, and hemolysin repertoires in clinical Escherichia coli O91 isolates. J Clin Microbiol . (2009) 47:2061–6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00201-09

24. Safdar, N, Said, A, Gangnon, RE, and Maki, DG. Risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome after antibiotic treatment of Escherichia coli O157: H7 enteritis: a meta-analysis. JAMA . (2002) 288:996–1001. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.8.996

25. McGannon, CM, Fuller, CA, and Weiss, AA. Different classes of antibiotics differentially influence Shiga toxin production. Antimicrob Agents Chemother . (2010) 54:3790–8. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01783-09

26. Kimmitt, PT, Harwood, CR, and Barer, MR. Toxin gene expression by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli : the role of antibiotics and the bacterial SOS response. Emerging Infect Dis . (2000) 6:458–65. doi: 10.3201/eid0605.000503

27. Menne, J, Nitschke, M, Stingele, R, Abu-Tair, M, Beneke, J, Bramstedt, J, et al. Validation of treatment strategies for enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O104:H4 induced haemolytic uraemic syndrome: case-control study. BMJ . (2012) 345:e4565. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4565

28. Corogeanu, D, Willmes, R, Wolke, M, Plum, G, Utermöhlen, O, and Krönke, M. Therapeutic concentrations of antibiotics inhibit Shiga toxin release from enterohemorrhagic E. coli O104:H4 from the 2011 German outbreak. BMC Microbiol . (2012) 12:160. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-160

29. Gantzhorn Pedersen, M, Hansen, C, Riise, E, Persson, S, and Olsen, KEP. Subtype-specific suppression of Shiga toxin 2 released from Escherichia coli upon exposure to protein synthesis inhibitors. J Clin Microbiol . (2008) 46:2987–91. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00871-08

30. Jost, C, Bidet, P, Carrère, T, Mariani-Kurkdjian, P, and Bonacorsi, S. Susceptibility of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli to azithromycin in France and analysis of resistance mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother . (2016) 71:1183–7. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkv477

31. Melton-Celsa, AR, and O’Brien, AD. New therapeutic developments against Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli . Microbiol Spectrum . (2014, 2014) 2. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.EHEC-0013-2013

32. Rahal, EA, Fadlallah, SM, Nassar, FJ, Kazziand, N, and Matar, GM. Approaches to treatment of emerging Shigatoxin-producing Escherichia coli infections highlighting the O104:H4 serotype. Front Cell Infect Microbiol . (2015) 5:24. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2015.00024

33. Dabke, G, Le Menach, A, Black, A, Gamblin, J, Palmer, M, Boxall, N, et al. Duration of shedding of Verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli in children and risk of transmission in childcare facilities in England. Epidemiol Infect . (2014) 142:327–34. doi: 10.1017/S095026881300109X

34. Rangel, JM, Sparling, PH, Crowe, C, Griffin, PM, and Swerdlow, DL. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157: H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982-2002. Emerg Infect Dis . (2005) 11:603–9. doi: 10.3201/eid1104.040739

35. Locking, ME, Pollock, KG, Allison, LJ, Rae, L, Hanson, MF, and Cowden, JM. Escherichia coli O157 infection and secondary spread, Scotland, 1999-2008. Emerg Infect Dis . (2011) 17:524–7. doi: 10.3201/eid1703.100167

36. Frank, D, Milde-Busch, A, and Werber, D. Results of surveillance for infections with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) of serotype O104:H4 after the large outbreak in Germany, July to December 2011. Euro Surveill . (2014) 19:20760. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.es2014.19.14.20760

37. Bielaszewska, M, Mellmann, A, Bletz, S, Zhang, W, Köck, R, Kossow, A, et al. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O26:H11/H-: a new virulent clone emerges in Europe. Clin Infect Dis . (2013) 56:1373–81. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit055

38. Lang, C, Hiller, M, Konrad, R, Fruth, A, and Flieger, A. Whole-genome-based public health surveillance of less common Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli Serovars and Untypeable strains identifies four novel O genotypes. J Clin Microbiol . (2019) 57:e00768–19. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00768-19

39. Lucarelli, LI, Alconcher, LF, Arias, V, and Galavotti, J. Duration of fecal shedding of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli among children with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Arch Argent Pediatr . (2021) 119:39–43. doi: 10.5546/aap.2021.eng.39

40. Veneti, L, Lange, H, Brandal, L, Danis, K, and Vold, L. Mapping of control measures to prevent secondary transmission of STEC infections in Europe during 2016 and revision of the national guidelines in Norway. Epidemiol Infect . (2019) 147:e267. doi: 10.1017/S0950268819001614

41. Matthews, L, Reeve, R, Gally, DL, Low, JC, Woolhouse, MEJ, McAteer, SP, et al. Predicting the public health benefit of vaccinating cattle against Escherichia coli O157. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . (2013) 110:16265–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304978110

42. Thomas, DE, and Elliott, EJ. Interventions for preventing diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: systematic review. BMC Public Health . (2013) 13:799. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-799

Keywords: STEC, EHEC, socio-economic burden, social restrictions, Shigatoxin, HUS, long-term carriage, fecal shedding

Citation: Sayk F, Hauswaldt S, Knobloch JK, Rupp J and Nitschke M (2024) Do asymptomatic STEC-long-term carriers need to be isolated or decolonized? New evidence from a community case study and concepts in favor of an individualized strategy. Front. Public Health . 12:1364664. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1364664

Received: 02 January 2024; Accepted: 08 April 2024; Published: 17 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Sayk, Hauswaldt, Knobloch, Rupp and Nitschke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Friedhelm Sayk, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.