Cited by 191Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Qualitative Research: Case study evaluation

Open access
Keen, Justin, Packwood, Tim·1995·BMJ

Abstract

Case study evaluations, using one or more qualitative methods, have been used to investigate important practical and policy questions in health care. This paper describes the features of a well designed case study and gives examples showing how qualitative methods are used in evaluations of health services and health policy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.311.7002.444

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Theory is important to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies.

    “In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[2].”

    From The case study approach (2011) · cites this paper as [2]

    The ‘Selection of sites’ section says cases may be chosen to test a theory, and the ‘Analytical frameworks’ section describes frameworks that facilitate interpretation. But the paper does not say theory must underpin every stage of a case study: its resource-management example had no suitable pre-existing theory and developed a framework during the study. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keen, J., & Packwood, T.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1995-08-12
Volume
311
Issue
7002
Pages
444-446
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1573809826
Cited by
191
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
28.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
case study evaluation, qualitative research, health service evaluation, health policy evaluation, evaluation design, health policy
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Health Resources, Health Services Research, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review