ethnographic study and case study

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Ethnographic Case Studies

Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith

Description

This research guide discusses ethnographic case study. While there is much debate over what, precisely, delimits a case study , the general consensus seems to be that ethnographic case studies differ from other types of case studies primarily in their focus, methodology, and duration. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. Indeed, in its very situatedness, ethnography has a “case study character” and is “intimately related” to case studies (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291); though there is currently a move to extract ethnographic work from overly situated contexts and use extended case methods, “[e]thnographic research has long been synonymous with case studies, typically conceived of as grounded in the local and situated in specific, well-defined and self-contained social contexts” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 290). Because ethnography, in practice, is often a kind of case study, it’s useful to consider ethnography and case studies each in their own right for a fuller picture of what ethnographic case study entails.

Ethnographic research is one approach under the larger umbrella of qualitative research. Methodologically, it is, “a theoretical, ethical, political, and at times moral orientation to research, which guides the decisions one makes, including choices about research methods” (Harrison, 2014, p. 225), that is at its crux “based upon sharing the time and space of those who one is studying” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291)–a situated, nuanced exploration seeking a thick description and drawing on methods such as observation and field notes. According to …an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. Creswell and Poth (2018), an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. In doing so, ethnographers look for patterns of behavior such as rituals or social behaviors, as well as how their ideas and beliefs are expressed through language, material activities, and actions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Yin (2016)  suggests that ethnographies seek “to promote embedded research that fuses close-up observation, rigorous theory, and social critique. [Ethnographies foster] work that pays equal attention to the minutiae of experience, the cultural texture of social relations, and to the remote structural forces and power vectors that bear on them” (p. 69).

Case study research, meanwhile, is characterized as an approach “that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of data sources” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 544). The aim of case studies is precise description of reconstruction of cases (Flick, 2015). The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. There is some debate about how to define a The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. “case” (e.g., Ó Rian, 2009), however. As Schwandt and Gates (2018) write, “[A] case is an instance, incident, or unit of something and can be anything–a person, an organization, an event, a decision, an action, a location”; it can be at the micro, meso, or macro level; it can be an empirical unit or a theoretical construct, specific or general; and in fact, “what the research or case object is a case of may not be known until most of the empirical research is completed” (p. 341). The two authors conclude that given the multifarious interpretations of what case study is, “[b]eyond positing that case study methodology has something to do with ‘in-depth’ investigation of a phenomenon . . . , it is a fool’s errand to pursue what is (or should be) truly called ‘case study’” (p. 343, 344).

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544-559.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Dezin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.; pp. 341-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Key Research Books and Articles on Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report , 22 (3), 923-941.  Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss3/16

In this how-to article, the authors present an argument for the use of a blended research design, namely the Ethnographic Case Study, for student researchers. To establish their point of view, the authors reiterate recognized research protocols, such as choosing a design that suits the research question to ensure data saturation. Additionally, they remind their reader that one must also consider the feasibility of the project in terms of time, energy, and financial constraints.

Before outlining the benefits and components of the Ethnographic Case Study approach, the authors provide detailed narratives of ethnographic, mini-ethnographic (sometimes referred to as a focused ethnography ), and case study research designs to orient the reader. Next, we are introduced to the term mini-ethnographic case-study design, which is defined as a blended design that is bound in time and space and uses qualitative ethnographic and case study collection methods. The benefits of such an approach permit simultaneous generation of theory and the study of that theory in practice, as it allows for the exploration of causality.

Ethnographic Case Study research shares many characteristics with its parent approaches.  For example, subjectivity and bias are present and must be addressed. Next, data triangulation is necessary to ensure the collected qualitative data and subsequent findings are valid and reliable. Data collection methods include direct observation, fieldwork, reflective journaling, informal or unstructured interviews, and focus groups. Finally, the authors discuss three limitations to the ethnographic case study. First, this design requires the researcher to be embedded, yet the duration of time may not be for as long when compared to full-scale ethnographic studies.  Second, since there are fewer participants, there should be a larger focus on rich data as opposed to thick data, or said differently, quality is valued over quantity. Third, the researcher must be aware that the end-goal is not transferability, but rather the objective is to gain a greater understanding of the culture of a particular group that is bound by space and time.

Gregory, E. & Ruby, M. (2010) The ‘insider/outsider’ dilemma of ethnography: Working with young children and their families in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X10387899

This article focuses on the dilemma of insider and outsider roles in ethnographic work. It challenges the notion that a researcher can be both an insider and an outsider at the same time. There is no insider/outsider status; it is one or the other–not both.

It is easy to make assumptions about one’s status as an insider. It is not uncommon for a researcher to assume that because one is working amongst his/her “own” people sharing a similar background, culture, or faith that she/he is an insider. Likewise, a researcher may assume that it will be easy to build rapport with a community with which he/she has commonalities; however, it is important to keep in mind that the person may be an insider but the researcher may not have this same status. When the person enters into the protective space of family or community as a researcher, it is similar to being an outsider. Being a researcher makes one different, regardless of the commonalities that are shared. It is not the researcher’s presumed status of “insider” or “outsider” that makes the difference; rather, researcher status is determined by the participants or community that is being studied. It is wise for researchers to understand that they are distinctively one of “them” as opposed to one of “us”. This is not to say that researchers cannot become an “insider” to some degree. But to assume insider status, regardless of the rationale, is wrong. Assuming common beliefs across cultures or insider status can lead to difficulties that could impact the scope or nature of the study.

In conclusion, regardless of the ethnographic design (e.g., realist ethnography, ethnographic case study, critical ethnography), it is important for the researcher to approach the study as an “outsider”. Although the outsider status may change over time, it essential to understand that when one enters a community as a researcher or becomes a researcher within a community, insider status must be earned and awarded according to the participants in the community.

Ó Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

In this chapter, Ó Rian valorizes the problems and potential hiding within the vagaries of ethnographic “case” boundaries, arguing that “whereas the fluid and multi-faceted aspects of the ethnographic case pose dilemmas for ethnographers, they can also become resources for ethnographers in exploring theoretical and empirical questions” (p. 292). Indeed, he views the idea of firm case boundaries as a weakness, as “definitions of the case will rule in and out certain social processes,” and suggests ethnography’s flexibility can deal with this problem well because it permits researchers to “question the boundaries of the case as the study proceeds,” leading to a “de- and re-construction of the case that . . . places ethnography at the centre of a resurgent contextualist paradigm of social inquiry . . . that is increasingly self-consciously exploring its own theoretical and methodological foundations” (p. 304). Most of the chapter delves into these possibilities for exploration, offering an insightful (if occasionally difficult to follow) perspective on how they have been proceeding.

The chapter offers considerations that might be particularly helpful to researchers undertaking ethnographic case studies who are struggling to connect their cases, so firmly rooted in a particular context and their own personal experiences and observations, to a bigger picture. Ó Rian elucidates the reflexive strategies various ethnographers have adopted as they’ve sought “[t]o achieve a link between context-specific data and meso- or macro-level generalizations,” categorizing these strategies into three “interlocking extensions of case study research” (p. 292): personal extensions (related to “the shaping of the boundaries of the case by the ethnographer’s location within the field and . . . how ethnographers can convey their personalized experiences and tacit learning to readers” [p. 292]), theoretical extensions (which bridge the gap between the situated worlds being explored and “the larger structures and processes that produced and shaped them” [p. 292]), and empirical extensions (“creative efforts to experiment with the empirical boundaries of the ethnographic case” [p. 292] by bringing in, for example, historical context, social networks, etc.). The crux of his argument is that ethnographic researchers have a prime opportunity to push against the boundaries of their context and “extend their cases across space, time and institutional structures and practices” so that the ethnographer is “multiply, if perhaps a bit uncomfortably, situated” (p. 304), and also to include an “emphasis on the ongoing process of theoretical sampling within the process of the ethnographic study, with close attention to be paid to the paths chosen and rejected, and the reasons for these decisions” (p. 304). These kinds of extensions offer an opportunity for theories to “be refined or reconstructed” as the researcher attempts to locate their personal experience within a broader framework, allowing “[t]he case study . . . to challenge and reconstruct the preferred theory” while also connecting the case to a larger body of work, particularly because theory “carries the accumulated knowledge of previous studies” (p. 296).

Ó Rian’s in-depth descriptions of how other researchers have varyingly handled these personal, theoretical, and empirical extensions might be a bit overwhelming to novice researchers but overall can offer a way to “locate their cases within broader social processes and not solely within their own personal trajectories” (p. 294)–while also helping to situate their reflections and extensions within a larger body of literature replete with researchers struggling with similar questions and concerns.

This chapter offers an  in-depth, generally accessible (but occasionally overwhelming) overview of case studies of all sorts and integrates an extensive review of relevant literature. The authors provide an informed perspective on various considerations and debates in the case study field (e.g., varying definitions of what a “case” is construed to be; interpretive vs. critical realist orientations; the relative benefits of and techniques involved in different types of approaches), helping novice researchers locate and better describe their own approach within the context of the field. The information is quite detailed and delves into a wide variety of case study types, suggesting this chapter might best be first skimmed as an initial introduction, followed by more careful readings of relevant sections and perusal of the key texts cited in the chapter. The breadth of this chapter makes it a helpful resource for anyone interested in case-study methodology.

The authors do not specifically explore ethnographic case studies as a separate type of case study. They do, however, briefly touch on this idea, locating ethnography within the interpretive orientation (comprising constructivist approaches offering “phenomenological attention to lived experience” [p. 344]). The authors also cite researchers who distinguish it due to its “[employing] ethnographic methods and focus on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (p. 344). Ethnographic case study is placed in contrast to case studies that use non-ethnographic methods (e.g., studies “relying perhaps on survey data and document analysis”) or that “are focused on ‘writing culture’” (p. 344).

Two aspects of this chapter are particularly useful for novice researchers. First, it is worth highlighting the authors’ discussion of varying definitions of what a “case” is, as it can provide an interesting reconceptualization of the purpose of the research and the reason for conducting it. The second noteworthy aspect is the authors’ detailed descriptions of the four main case study uses/designs ( descriptive, hypothesis generation or theory development, hypothesis and theory testing , and contributing to normative theory ), which the authors beautifully align with the respective purposes and methods of each type while also offering insight into relevant conversations in the field.

Further Readings

Moss, P. A., & Haertel, E. H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 127–247). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Simons, H. (2014). Case study research: In-depth understanding in context. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 455–470). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Recent Dissertations Using Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Cozzolino, M. (2014). Global education, accountability, and 21st century skills: A case of curriculum innovation . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3648007)

This dissertation is self-described as an ethnographic case study of a small, public, suburban high school in Pennsylvania. In this study, the researcher investigates the school’s process of integrating global education into its curriculum by implementing a school-wide initiative (Global Studies Initiative or GSI) as well as a program of study (Global Studies Credential or GSC). Cozzolino asserts that her framework has been shaped by both social constructivism and critical/Freirean pedagogy. From the constructivist view, she views knowledge as constructed through social interaction, and thus she sought to understand the world in which the research participants work, learn, and experience large parts of their lives. It is here that she situates the first three research questions that entail looking at the the GSI and the GSC in terms of their features, rationales, and implementations. The fourth question involves understanding the students’ views and perceptions of the GSC and here the author takes up a critical and Freirean pedagogy to honor and hear the voices of the students themselves.

The study design is therefore an embedded single-case study in that it is bound by the place (Olympus High School) and by its population. Furthermore, it is also a case within a case, as it seeks to understand the students’ perspectives of the global programming. The case study is ethnographically rooted through the multiple ethnographic data sources such as participant-observations and a prolonged engagement at the research site. Cozzolino embedded herself in the research site over a five-year period and became an active and invested member of the school community, thereby establishing a sound rationale for an ethnographic case-study approach.

The author concludes that there were some competing priorities about the overall initiative from stakeholders inside and outside the school district. This resulted in a less than ideal implementation of the program of study across the curriculum. Nonetheless, the students who were enrolled in these courses reported it to be a worthwhile experience. While Cozzolino presents specific recommendations for the improvements at Olympus High, she also offers implications for several other groups. First, she provides advice for implementation to other educational institutions that aim to integrate a global focus into their curriculum. Next, she gives recommendations for local, state, and national policy changes. Finally, she gives suggestions for engaging all parties in fruitful discourse to achieve their ultimate goal of implementing a meaningful and valuable global education curriculum.

Hamman, L. (2018). Reframing the language separation debate: Language, identity, and  ideology in two-way immersion . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 2089463322)

This study explored the issues of surrounding language separation in two-way immersion (TWI) classrooms. The author looked at how classroom language practices and teacher ideologies influenced the student experience and how the students’ understanding of what it means to be bilingual is influenced in a classroom that purports to be equitable in terms of language use.

The study is theoretically grounded in sociocultural, critical, and postcultural theories and adapted Lemke’s ecosocial system to conceptualize TWI classroom. Hamman also drew upon translanguaging theory and dynamic bilingualism to provide a framework for a more modern and nuanced perspective of bilingualism, bilingual learning, and bilingual students.

The author combined a single-case study approach with ethnographic methods to “engage in close analysis of classroom language use and the discursive negotiation of identities and ideologies, while situating these analyses within a rich understanding of the sociolinguistic context of this TWI classroom” (p. 78-79). She employed various ethnographic methods such as taking fieldnotes, conducting participant observations, interviewing, and memoing. The study is “bound” in that it takes place in one 2nd-grade classroom with one teacher and 18 students over the course of one year.

Hamman concludes that student perspectives on language separation should be considered, since this forced separation of language influenced how they thought of their developing bilingualism and identity as bilinguals. Furthermore, the study envisages a linguistic “middle ground” to strict separation that allows for appropriate and meaningful spaces for linguistic negotiation. Finally, this dissertation asserts that the strict separation of languages codifies a monoglossic ideology mindset and limits learners’ possibilities for learning and making connections across languages.

Kim, S. (2015). Korean migrant youth identity work in the transnational social field: A link between identity, transnationalism, and new media literacy . Retrieved from University of Missouri-St. Louis Institutional Repository Library. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/158/

This doctoral dissertation takes an ethnographic case study approach to explore the identity formation of transnational Korean youth. The researcher, herself a Korean immigrant to the U.S. navigating complex identity processes, focuses on these research questions: “1) what are the contexts in which migrant youth negotiate their identities? 2) how do youth understand and negotiate their sense of belonging? 3) how do youth’s [sic] cultural and literacy practices inform and shape their identities? 3i) how do youth make use of transnational new media for their identity work? 3ii) how do literacy practices potentially shape their identities?” (p. 7).

Drawing on Leander and McKim (2013), the author conceptualizes her study as a “connective ethnography” (p. 36) encompassing multiple spaces, both digital and physical, in which “space” comprises a variety of relationships, instead of a more traditional ethnography bounded by physical space. The “case study” aspect, meanwhile, refers to the four specific participants in which she chose to focus. She chose Korean immigrants in St. Louis, in general, due to their mobility between the U.S. and Korea, their high use of digital communication and information technology, and their limited access to the cultural resources of Korea in a Midwestern city. From an initial 32 possible participants purposively selected, the researcher chose four focal participants based on their Korean ethnicity, biliteracy in Korean and English, age (between 11 and 19 years old), residence in the U.S. (for at least 2 years), and their use of digital communication technologies. Data sources included an initial screening survey, an identity map each participant created, informal recorded conversations, recorded interviews in either English or Korean, field notes from the researcher’s interactions with the youth in various settings (home, school, community centers), and “literacy documents” (evidence of literacy practices from participants’ school and home, emails to the researcher, or activities in digital spaces). She used social semiotic multimodal discourse analysis and what she describes as “grounded theory thematic analysis” to analyze the data.

This is a reflective, thoughtful, and interesting dissertation. The author carefully notes the relationship between the data sources and her research questions, specifically addresses steps she took to ensure the validity of the data (e.g., triangulation via multiple data sources and theoretical frameworks, member checks, and feedback from her professors and other researchers), and discloses her own positionalities and biases. Her discussion includes not only a clear thematic exploration of her findings but also offers specific practical suggestions for how her findings can be applied and extended in the classroom.

Internet Resources

Abalos-Gerard Gonzalez , L. (2011). Ethnographic research . Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/lanceabalos/ethnographic-research-2?from_action=save

Created by Lance Gerard G. Abalos, teacher at the Department of Education-Philippines, this SlideShare, Ethnographic Research , explains that, regardless of specific design, ethnographic research should be undertaken “without any priori hypothesis to avoid predetermining what is observed or that information is elicited from informants . . .hypotheses evolve out of the fieldwork itself” (slide 4). It is also suggested that researchers refer to individuals from whom information is gathered as ‘informants’ is preferred over the term ‘participants’ (slide 4).

According to Abalos, “It is not the data collection techniques that determine whether the study is ethnographic, but rather the ‘socio-cultural interpretation’ that sets it apart from other forms of qualitative inquiry” (slide 6). A social situation always has three components: a place, actors, and activities (slide 8) and it is the socio-cultural interpretation of the interactions of these three that is the focus of the ethnographic research.

Ethnographic questions should guide what the researcher sees, hears, and collects as data (slide 9). When writing the ethnography, it is essential to ‘bring the culture or group to life’ through the words and descriptions used to describe the place, actors, and activities.

Abalos describes three types of ethnographic designs:

• Realist Ethnographies : an objective account of the situation, written dispassionately from third-person point of view, reporting objectively on information learned from informants, containing closely edited quotations (slide 11-12).
• Ethnographic Case Studies : researchers focus on a program, event, or activity involving individuals rather than a group, looking for shared patterns that develop as a group as a result of the program, event, or activity (slide 13).
• Critical Ethnographies: incorporating a ‘critical’ approach that includes an advocacy perspective, researchers are interested in advocating against inequality and domination (slide 14).

As ethnographic data is analyzed, in any design (e.g., realist, case study, critical), there is a shift away from reporting the facts to making an interpretation of people and activities, determining how things work, and identifying the essential features in themes of the cultural setting (slide 22). “The ethnographer must present the description, themes, and interpretation within the context or setting of the culture-sharing group (slide 23).

Brehm, W. (2016, July 21). FreshEd #13 – Jane Kenway . Retrieved from http://www.freshedpodcast.com/tag/ethnography/ (EDXSymposium: New Frontiers in Comparative Education).

Jane Kenway is with the Australian Research Council and is an emeritus professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In this podcast, she explains “traditional’ forms of ethnography and multi-sited global ethnography, which are her area of specialization. She considers “traditional” ethnography to have three components: space, time, and mobility.

Insider/outsider stance is explained within the context of spatiality, community, and culture of space specific to ‘traditional” ethnography. Researchers are outsiders who are attempting to enter a space and become insiders, then leave the space once the research is completed. Research is conducted over an extended period of time in one place/space. As a result, researchers will get to know in an extremely intimate manner the ways of life of the community or group. “Work is supposed to be a temporality of slowness. In other words, you don’t rush around like a mad thing in a field, you just quietly and slowly immerse yourself in the field over this extended period of time and get to understand it, get to appreciate it bit by bit.” (minute 7:56).

“Traditional” ethnographers are not necessarily interested in mobility over time or exploring who enters and exits the site. Most ethnographers are only interested in the movement that occurs in the space that is being studied during the time that they are in the field. It is about looking at the roots of the space, not necessarily about looking at the movements into and out of the space.

Multi-sited global ethnography tries to look at the way bounded sites can be studied as unbounded and on the move, as opposed to staying still. It considers how certain things (e.g., things, ideas, people) are  followed as they move. The researcher moves between sites, studying change that is encountered in different sites. From this perspective, the interested lies in the connections between sites. Multiple sites with commonalities can also be studied at the onset, without the need to physically follow.

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

While this text is not solely about ethnographic case studies, it is rich with countless ideas for utilizing digital tools to aid in the multiple facets of qualitative research. In Chapter 5 of their text, entitled Generating Data, the authors dedicate a section to exploring Internet archives and multimedia data. They state that, “in addition to online communities, the Internet is rich with multimedia data such as professionally curated archives, ameteur-created YouTube and Vimeo videos and photo-sharing sites” (p. 81). They provide three specific examples, each explained below: The Internet Archive, CADENSA, and Britain’s BBC Archives.

The Internet Archive ( https://archive.org ) is a non-profit library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, websites, and more. The site also contains a variety of cultural artifacts that are easily available and downloadable. CADENSA ( http://cadensa.bl.uk ) is an online archive of the British Library Sound and Moving Image Catalogue. And finally, the BBC Archives ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ ) is a particularly useful site for researchers interested in reviewing documentary film and political speeches.

Wang, T. (2016, September). Tricia Wang: The human insights missing from big data. [Video file]. Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/tricia_wang_the_human_insights_missing_from_big_data

In this TED Talk, Tricia Wang discusses her ethnographic work with technology and advocates for the need to save a place for thick data as opposed to relying only on big data. She argues that while companies invest millions of dollars in generating big data because they assume it will efficiently provide all the answers, it routinely does not provide a good return on investment. Instead, companies are left without answers to the questions about consumer preferences and behaviors, which leaves them unprepared for market changes.

In turn, Wang coins the term thick data, which is described as “precious data from humans, like stories, emotions, and interactions that cannot be quantified” (Minute 11:50). Wang suggests that this thick data may only come from a small group of individuals, but it is an essential component that can provide insights that are different and valuable. As an example, while working for Nokia, her ethnographic experiences in China provided her with new understandings on the future demand for smartphones. However, her employer did not take her findings seriously, and as a result, they lost their foothold in the technology market. She posits that a blended approach to collecting and analyzing data (i.e. combining or integrating thick data analysis with big data analysis) allows for a better grasp on the whole picture and making informed decisions.

Her conclusions for a blended approach to data collection also have implications for blending ethnographic and case-study approaches. While Wang took more of an ethnographic approach to her research, one could envision what her work might have looked like if she had used an Ethnographic Case Study approach. Wang could have clearly defined the time and space boundaries of her various ethnographic experiences (e.g. as a street vendor, living in the slums, hanging out in internet cafés). This would have allowed her to infer causality through the generation of thick data with a small sample size for each location and bound by each group.

Ethnographic Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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 Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples

What Is Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on March 13, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethnography is a type of qualitative research that involves immersing yourself in a particular community or organization to observe their behavior and interactions up close. The word “ethnography” also refers to the written report of the research that the ethnographer produces afterwards.

Ethnography is a flexible research method that allows you to gain a deep understanding of a group’s shared culture, conventions, and social dynamics. However, it also involves some practical and ethical challenges.

Table of contents

What is ethnography used for, different approaches to ethnographic research, gaining access to a community, working with informants, observing the group and taking field notes, writing up an ethnography, other interesting articles.

Ethnographic research originated in the field of anthropology, and it often involved an anthropologist living with an isolated tribal community for an extended period of time in order to understand their culture.

This type of research could sometimes last for years. For example, Colin M. Turnbull lived with the Mbuti people for three years in order to write the classic ethnography The Forest People .

Today, ethnography is a common approach in various social science fields, not just anthropology. It is used not only to study distant or unfamiliar cultures, but also to study specific communities within the researcher’s own society.

For example, ethnographic research (sometimes called participant observation ) has been used to investigate  football fans , call center workers , and police officers .

Advantages of ethnography

The main advantage of ethnography is that it gives the researcher direct access to the culture and practices of a group. It is a useful approach for learning first-hand about the behavior and interactions of people within a particular context.

By becoming immersed in a social environment, you may have access to more authentic information and spontaneously observe dynamics that you could not have found out about simply by asking.

Ethnography is also an open and flexible method. Rather than aiming to verify a general theory or test a hypothesis , it aims to offer a rich narrative account of a specific culture, allowing you to explore many different aspects of the group and setting.

Disadvantages of ethnography

Ethnography is a time-consuming method. In order to embed yourself in the setting and gather enough observations to build up a representative picture, you can expect to spend at least a few weeks, but more likely several months. This long-term immersion can be challenging, and requires careful planning.

Ethnographic research can run the risk of observer bias . Writing an ethnography involves subjective interpretation, and it can be difficult to maintain the necessary distance to analyze a group that you are embedded in.

There are often also ethical considerations to take into account: for example, about how your role is disclosed to members of the group, or about observing and reporting sensitive information.

Should you use ethnography in your research?

If you’re a student who wants to use ethnographic research in your thesis or dissertation , it’s worth asking yourself whether it’s the right approach:

• Could the information you need be collected in another way (e.g. a survey , interviews)?
• How difficult will it be to gain access to the community you want to study?
• How exactly will you conduct your research, and over what timespan?
• What ethical issues might arise?

If you do decide to do ethnography, it’s generally best to choose a relatively small and easily accessible group, to ensure that the research is feasible within a limited timeframe.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

There are a few key distinctions in ethnography which help to inform the researcher’s approach: open vs. closed settings, overt vs. covert ethnography, and active vs. passive observation. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Open vs. closed settings

The setting of your ethnography—the environment in which you will observe your chosen community in action—may be open or closed.

An open or public setting is one with no formal barriers to entry. For example, you might consider a community of people living in a certain neighborhood, or the fans of a particular baseball team.

• Gaining initial access to open groups is not too difficult…
• …but it may be harder to become immersed in a less clearly defined group.

A closed or private setting is harder to access. This may be for example a business, a school, or a cult.

• A closed group’s boundaries are clearly defined and the ethnographer can become fully immersed in the setting…
• …but gaining access is tougher; the ethnographer may have to negotiate their way in or acquire some role in the organization.

Overt vs. covert ethnography

Most ethnography is overt . In an overt approach, the ethnographer openly states their intentions and acknowledges their role as a researcher to the members of the group being studied.

• Overt ethnography is typically preferred for ethical reasons, as participants can provide informed consent…
• …but people may behave differently with the awareness that they are being studied.

Sometimes ethnography can be covert . This means that the researcher does not tell participants about their research, and comes up with some other pretense for being there.

• Covert ethnography allows access to environments where the group would not welcome a researcher…
• …but hiding the researcher’s role can be considered deceptive and thus unethical.

Active vs. passive observation

Different levels of immersion in the community may be appropriate in different contexts. The ethnographer may be a more active or passive participant depending on the demands of their research and the nature of the setting.

An active role involves trying to fully integrate, carrying out tasks and participating in activities like any other member of the community.

• Active participation may encourage the group to feel more comfortable with the ethnographer’s presence…
• …but runs the risk of disrupting the regular functioning of the community.

A passive role is one in which the ethnographer stands back from the activities of others, behaving as a more distant observer and not involving themselves in the community’s activities.

• Passive observation allows more space for careful observation and note-taking…
• …but group members may behave unnaturally due to feeling they are being observed by an outsider.

While ethnographers usually have a preference, they also have to be flexible about their level of participation. For example, access to the community might depend upon engaging in certain activities, or there might be certain practices in which outsiders cannot participate.

An important consideration for ethnographers is the question of access. The difficulty of gaining access to the setting of a particular ethnography varies greatly:

• To gain access to the fans of a particular sports team, you might start by simply attending the team’s games and speaking with the fans.
• To access the employees of a particular business, you might contact the management and ask for permission to perform a study there.
• Alternatively, you might perform a covert ethnography of a community or organization you are already personally involved in or employed by.

Flexibility is important here too: where it’s impossible to access the desired setting, the ethnographer must consider alternatives that could provide comparable information.

For example, if you had the idea of observing the staff within a particular finance company but could not get permission, you might look into other companies of the same kind as alternatives. Ethnography is a sensitive research method, and it may take multiple attempts to find a feasible approach.

All ethnographies involve the use of informants . These are people involved in the group in question who function as the researcher’s primary points of contact, facilitating access and assisting their understanding of the group.

This might be someone in a high position at an organization allowing you access to their employees, or a member of a community sponsoring your entry into that community and giving advice on how to fit in.

However,  i f you come to rely too much on a single informant, you may be influenced by their perspective on the community, which might be unrepresentative of the group as a whole.

In addition, an informant may not provide the kind of spontaneous information which is most useful to ethnographers, instead trying to show what they believe you want to see. For this reason, it’s good to have a variety of contacts within the group.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The core of ethnography is observation of the group from the inside. Field notes are taken to record these observations while immersed in the setting; they form the basis of the final written ethnography. They are usually written by hand, but other solutions such as voice recordings can be useful alternatives.

Field notes record any and all important data: phenomena observed, conversations had, preliminary analysis. For example, if you’re researching how service staff interact with customers, you should write down anything you notice about these interactions—body language, phrases used repeatedly, differences and similarities between staff, customer reactions.

Don’t be afraid to also note down things you notice that fall outside the pre-formulated scope of your research; anything may prove relevant, and it’s better to have extra notes you might discard later than to end up with missing data.

Field notes should be as detailed and clear as possible. It’s important to take time to go over your notes, expand on them with further detail, and keep them organized (including information such as dates and locations).

After observations are concluded, there’s still the task of writing them up into an ethnography. This entails going through the field notes and formulating a convincing account of the behaviors and dynamics observed.

The structure of an ethnography

An ethnography can take many different forms: It may be an article, a thesis, or an entire book, for example.

Ethnographies often do not follow the standard structure of a scientific paper, though like most academic texts, they should have an introduction and conclusion. For example, this paper begins by describing the historical background of the research, then focuses on various themes in turn before concluding.

An ethnography may still use a more traditional structure, however, especially when used in combination with other research methods. For example, this paper follows the standard structure for empirical research: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

The content of an ethnography

The goal of a written ethnography is to provide a rich, authoritative account of the social setting in which you were embedded—to convince the reader that your observations and interpretations are representative of reality.

Ethnography tends to take a less impersonal approach than other research methods. Due to the embedded nature of the work, an ethnography often necessarily involves discussion of your personal experiences and feelings during the research.

Ethnography is not limited to making observations; it also attempts to explain the phenomena observed in a structured, narrative way. For this, you may draw on theory, but also on your direct experience and intuitions, which may well contradict the assumptions that you brought into the research.

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

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

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Caulfield, J. (2023, June 22). What Is Ethnography? | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/ethnography/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, critical discourse analysis | definition, guide & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Understanding Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Experiences of Writing and Publishing in English pp 67–87 Cite as

An Ethnographic Case Study Design

• Congjun Mu 2  
• First Online: 23 January 2020

429 Accesses

This chapter justifies the selection of an ethnographic case study approach to investigate Chinese multilingual scholars’ experiences in writing for scholarly publication in English. Mixed methods—quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews—are used to elicit data exposing Chinese scholars’ attitude to the controversies discussed in the literature and their strategies to cope with the challenges they face in writing and publishing in English. An in-depth case analysis method with text-history analysis is introduced. The questionnaire design owes much to previous studies in ERPP research, a field that has developed rapidly in recent years and may continue to grow in the future. The procedures of semi-structured interviews and document collection are presented in detail in the interests of transparency, reliability, and validity of the 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

Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Encinas, F. (2012). Facilitated immersion at a distance in second language scientific writing. In M. C. Badia & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 235–252). London: Emerald.

Google Scholar  

Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: A comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 , 72–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (2), 17–203.

Cho, D. W. (2009). Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 230–239.

Counsell, J. (2011). How effectively and consistently do international postgraduate students apply the writing strategies they have been taught in a generic skills-based course to their subsequent discipline-based studies? Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5 (1), A1–A17.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 663–688.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29 , 281–295.

Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 152–164.

Fife, W. (2005). Doing Fieldwork Ethnographic Methods for Research in Developing Countries and Beyond . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 243–263.

Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 123–145.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 127–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 , 77–86.

Flowerdew, J. (2009). Goffman’s stigma and EAL writers: The author responds to Casanave. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 69–72.

Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22 (3), 923–941.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research . London: Academic Press.

Gollin-Kies, S. (2014). Methods reported in ESP research articles: A comparative survey of two leading journals. English for Specific Purposes, 36 , 27–34.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28 , 403–416.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Scientific Writing in a Second Language . Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 240–250.

Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1 (1), 74–85.

Kourilova, M. (1998). Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulation, 32 , 107–114.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52 (1), 31–60.

LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (2008). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research (2nd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2019). Doctoral candidates’ dual role as student and expert scholarly writer: An activity theory perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 54 , 62–74.

Li, X., Xue, M., Wang, Q., & Feng, H. (2011). The thinking and practice on performance evaluation of the classification of higher education institutions in Shanghai. Research in Education Development, 17 , 1–5.

Li, Y. (2002). Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12 , 179–194.

Li, Y. (2006a). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25 , 456–478.

Li, Y. (2006b). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 , 159–178.

Li, Y. (2012). “I have no time to find out where the sentences came from; I just rebuild them”: A biochemistry professor eliminating novices’ textual borrowing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 59–70.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23 , 3–35.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research . London: SAGE Publications.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moreno, A. I., Burgess, S., Sachdev, I., López-Navarro, I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA questionnaire: Publication experiences in scientific journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved from http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php

Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English medium journals: The impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, 24 , 157–184.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2012). Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Iberica, 24 , 139–156.

Muresan, L.-M., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13 , 53–64.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnograph approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied linguistics, 20 (1), 41–70.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work . New York: Guilford Press.

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (3), 674–701.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (4), 575–592.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn . New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yockey, R. D. (2010). SPSS Demystified (C. Liu & Z. Wu, Chinese Trans.). Beijing: Renmin University of China Press.

Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 29–48.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Congjun Mu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Mu, C. (2020). An Ethnographic Case Study Design. In: Understanding Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Experiences of Writing and Publishing in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Published : 23 January 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-33937-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-33938-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Ethnographic research as an evolving method for supporting healthcare improvement skills: a scoping review

Georgia b. black.

Department of Applied Health Research, UCL, London, UK

Sandra van Os

Samantha machen, naomi j. fulop, associated data.

All papers included in the review are listed in Additional file 4 and are publicly available from their publishers’ websites.

The relationship between ethnography and healthcare improvement has been the subject of methodological concern. We conducted a scoping review of ethnographic literature on healthcare improvement topics, with two aims: (1) to describe current ethnographic methods and practices in healthcare improvement research and (2) to consider how these may affect habit and skill formation in the service of healthcare improvement.

We used a scoping review methodology drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched electronic databases including Medline, PsychINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL for papers published between April 2013 – April 2018, with an update in September 2019. Information about study aims, methodology and recommendations for improvement were extracted. We used a theoretical framework outlining the habits and skills required for healthcare improvement to consider how ethnographic research may foster improvement skills.

We included 274 studies covering a wide range of healthcare topics and methods. Ethnography was commonly used for healthcare improvement research about vulnerable populations, e.g. elderly, psychiatry. Focussed ethnography was a prominent method, using a rapid feedback loop into improvement through focus and insider status. Ethnographic approaches such as the use of theory and focus on every day practices can foster improvement skills and habits such as creativity, learning and systems thinking.

Conclusions

We have identified that a variety of ethnographic approaches can be relevant to improvement. The skills and habits we identified may help ethnographers reflect on their approaches in planning healthcare improvement studies and guide peer-review in this field. An important area of future research will be to understand how ethnographic findings are received by decision-makers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01466-9.

Research can help to support the practice of healthcare improvement, and identify ways to “improve improvement” [ 1 ]. Ethnography has been identified particularly as a research method that can show what happens routinely in healthcare, and reveal the ‘ what and how of improving patient care [ 2 ]. Ethnography is not one method, but a paradigm of mainly qualitative research involving direct observations of people and places, producing a written account of natural or everyday behaviours and ideas [ 3 ]. Ethnographic research can identify contextual barriers to healthcare improvement. For example, Waring and colleagues suggested that hospital discharge could be improved by allowing staff to have more opportunities for informal communication [ 4 ].

There have been advances in ethnographic methods that support its role in supporting healthcare improvement. Multi-site, collaborative modalities of ethnography have evolved that suit the networked nature of modern healthcare [ 5 ]. Similarly, rapid ethnographic approaches (e.g. Bentley et al. [ 6 ];) meet the needs of improvement activities to produce findings within short timeframes [ 7 ]. However, the production of sustained ethnographic fieldwork has waned in response to demands for rapid evidence [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]. Critics of rapid ethnographic methods worry that they are diluting ethnography within applied contexts more widely [ 5 , 10 ].

The relationship between ethnography and healthcare improvement has been the subject of methodological concern [ 8 ]. The first concern is that some research identified as ethnography does not fit within the ethnographic paradigm, merely collecting observational data without a theoretical analysis, interpretation or researcher reflexivity [ 11 ]. A second concern is whether the topics of ethnographic inquiry produce findings that are seen as useful for improvement [ 12 ], particularly if they do not make explicit recommendations or produce checklists [ 8 , 13 – 15 ]. Authors fear that ethnographic findings that capture complexity [ 16 ] and expose taken-for-granted behaviours and phenomena [ 14 , 17 ] may be too abstract to be relevant to healthcare improvement [ 8 ]. However, these critiques position ethnographic research as a product which may be taken up by healthcare improvers, rather than seeing ethnographic work itself as an improvement activity. We take the view that healthcare improvement aims to change human behaviour to improve patient care, and is therefore reliant on the development of particular skills and habits (such as good communication) [ 18 ]. We would consider that engaging in ethnographic research may support skill development and habit formation that serves healthcare improvement.

In the literature of ethnography in healthcare improvement, there is not much discussion of the close relationship between methodological features of ethnographic research, and their impact on improvement skills. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to describe current ethnographic methods and practices in healthcare improvement research and (2) to consider how these may affect habit and skill formation in the service of healthcare improvement [ 19 ].

This is a scoping review following the methods outlined by Arksey & O’Malley and later refined by Levac et al., [ 20 , 21 ] including a systematically conducted literature review and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; see Additional file 1 for PRISMA checklist). No protocol was published for this review. Our literature search and analyses were conducted iteratively, searching reference lists and undertaking discussions with colleagues about key lines of argument. We also held a workshop at Health Services Research UK conference in 2018 on this topic to gain a wide range of stakeholder views.

Systematic retrieval of empirical papers and purposive sampling

Our search strategy was designed to capture a wide range of approaches to ethnography from different journals, healthcare settings and types of research environment. It was not our aim to capture every study using this methodology, but to map the current field. Thus we did not search grey literature, books or monographs. The search strategy was developed and piloted in consultation with a health librarian. Medline (on OVID platform), PsychINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched, and six journals were hand-searched, including: BMJ Quality & Safety, Social Science and Medicine, Medical Anthropology, Cochrane library, Sociology of Health and Illness and Implementation Science. These databases were searched between dates April 2013 – April 2018 and an update was performed in September 2019 using the search terms outlined in Additional file 2 . We limited the search to these dates in order to capture the most recent methodological characteristics of ethnographic studies in this field.

We screened titles and then abstracts according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria detailed in Table ​ Table1. 1 . We included studies which self-identified as using ethnography or ethnographic methods rather than using our own criteria. This is because ethnography can be hard to define, and use of criteria may risk excluding papers which exemplify the sorts of tensions and workarounds we are trying to capture.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The retrieved papers were screened by GB, SVO and SM based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). The total number of papers after screening titles, abstracts and full texts was 274 (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 ).

PRISMA statement of all references retrieved, screened and included in the scoping review

Numerical charting

Characteristics of each paper, such as title, authors, journal, year, country and healthcare subject area were extracted (see Table ​ Table2 2 ).

Characteristics of studies in review

a some studies have been allocated to more than one region

Thematic analysis and development

We coded all 274 papers using NVivo software for stated aims and recommendations. This included close reading, and retrieval of key ideas and quotations from the papers that exemplified key ideas in relation to healthcare improvement, methodology and the authors’ reflections on these. The coded extracts of aims and recommendation in conjunction with the closer reading of the sub-sample were used to inductively develop conceptual ideas, such as how the corpus of papers explicitly aimed to contribute to healthcare improvement, and if not, how this affected the types of conclusions drawn. Some papers were read in greater depth to understand how the authors’ methods related to their findings and conclusions. In order to consider how ethnography supports habits and skills associated with healthcare improvement, we drew on a framework which identifies five habits of ‘improvers’: creativity, learning, systems thinking, resilience and influencing [ 19 ]. Applying this model to our selected papers, we mapped traits or approaches to the ethnographic studies that exemplified these habits either in the authors, or as part of developing these habits in others (e.g. healthcare decision-makers and professionals). Thematic interpretations and lines of argument were generated and discussed by all the authors.

Overview of study characteristics

The included studies covered a wide range of ethnographic methodologies and healthcare subjects, published internationally (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) in predominantly social science and clinical journals (see Additional file 3 ). The full list of the 274 included studies is available in Additional file 4 .

Most studies described themselves as an ‘ethnography’ or ‘ethnographic’, although some described their methodology as ‘mixed methods’ including ethnographic components. For example, Collet et al. conducted a mixed methods participatory action research study using observations to produce an “ethnographic description” [ 22 ].

Almost all studies relied on observation and interviews as the main data sources. It was not always specified whether researchers took a participant or non-participant approach to observation. There were some examples of other data sources e.g. video data, surveys, documents, field notes, diaries, and artefacts. A few examples contained a paucity of data, such as only video data [ 23 ], limited fieldwork [ 24 ], a small number of interviewees [ 25 ], or reliance on focus group data alone [ 26 ]. Methods associated with qualitative methodology (but not necessarily ethnographic) were also used, such as data ‘saturation’ to denote that additional data did not provide new insights into the topic [ 27 ].

There were a number of minority or unusual ethnographic variations:

• Quantitative ethnography [ 23 ]: temporal coding of physicians' workflow and interaction with the electronic health record system, and their patient.
• Cognitive ethnography [ 28 ]: “identifying and elaborating distributed cognitive processes that occur when an individual enacts purposeful improvements in a clinical context”.
• Street-level organizational ethnography [ 29 ]: intensive case study methods to explore the implications of healthcare policy at a street level.
• Phenomenological ethnographies [ 30 ]: focussing on the lived experience and meanings associated with a phenomenon.
• Geo-mapping [ 31 ]: geomapping of selected service data to define Latino immigrant community before conducting interviews and observations.

Use of different types of ethnography to support healthcare improvement

We found that many studies used methods that could identify issues relating to power and vulnerability, with potential relevance to how healthcare improvement problems are defined and solved, and by whom [ 1 ]. For example we noted a significant minority of studies using institutional and critical ethnography, mostly in vulnerable populations (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). These studies were explicitly attentive to systems and power relations, rather than on individual practices. We suggest that the use of geographically-oriented methods such as geo-mapping and street-level organisational ethnography are also attentive to the power structures inherent in place and space, and could be relevant to other geographical healthcare improvement topics such as networked healthcare systems, care at home and patient travel for treatment.

Ethnographic methodology and its relevance to healthcare improvement

The high prevalence of ethnographic studies with vulnerable populations (e.g. psychiatry, end of life care) suggests that ethnography is also being conceptualised as an emancipatory method, reversing healthcare power structures in its focus. This has been a traditional focus of ethnography since social changes in power and representation in the 1970s, incorporated into the development of healthcare research methodology [ 40 , 41 ]. Some methods used were calculated to maximise the potential for supporting vulnerable groups, for example, Nightingale et al. [ 42 ] used focused ethnography (prolonged fieldwork in a small number of settings) to look at patient-professional interactions in paediatric chronic illness settings. The authors suggested that focussed ethnography is particularly suited to settings where fostering trust is essential. We would also suggest that ethnography may be particularly suited to settings in which participants are less able to verbalise their experiences.

The reviewed studies suggested that video ethnography can support healthcare improvement at a team level. For example, Stevens et al. [ 43 ] promoted video ethnography as a way to capture in-depth data on intimate interactions, in their study of elective caesareans. The video data allowed them to make use of timing data (e.g. of certain actions), physical positioning of different actors and equipment, and verbatim dialogue recording. The video data also suited the technical nature of the procedure, which was relatively time-limited. This form of data collection may not suit environments where healthcare activities are more spread out.

The impact of healthcare practitioner involvement in ethnographic fieldwork and findings

We noted that the use of ethnography for healthcare improvement has led to healthcare practitioners’ widespread involvement in data collection or analysis. We suggest that this is a form of negotiation across the healthcare-academia boundary, translating from ‘real world’ to data and back again. This has potential to create rich and relevant ethnographic studies that are geared towards improvement. However, some studies were undermined by a lack of reflexivity about the dual practitioner-ethnographer role.

A significant number of papers involved healthcare practitioners in fieldwork (e.g. Abdulrehman, 2017, Hoare et al. 2013; [ 37 , 44 ]). For example in Hoare et al. the lead researcher was a nurse, and wrote that they hoped “to bring both an emic and etic perspective to the data collection by bracketing my emic sense of self as a nurse practitioner in order to become a participant observer within my own general practice ” [ 37 ]. In this study, the findings fed directly into local service improvement as the lead researcher felt compelled to “share new ‘best practice’ information and join in the conversation.” There was little discussion about how this affected the generalisability of the findings, and whether their recommendations were adopted.

Similarly, Bergenholz et al. [ 45 ] conducted a study where a nursing researcher completed the main fieldwork and “assisted the nurses with practical care .” They acknowledged that “This may have caused limitations with regards to ‘blind spots’ in the nursing practice, but that it also gave access to a field that might be difficult for ‘outside-outsiders’ to gain .” However, there was no commentary on where the blind spots or extra access occurred, and how this may have affected the relevance and dissemination of their findings.

How might ethnography support healthcare improvement habits?

In this section, we evaluate the studies included in the review in terms of how their methods relate to improvement. We draw on the idea that successful improvement is based on a set of habits and their related skills acquired through experience and practice [ 19 ]. This section is structured around Lucas’s five habits of ‘improvers’: creativity, learning, systems thinking, resilience and influencing [ 19 ]. Under those headings, we describe the mechanisms by which ethnographic studies can support healthcare improvement habits, using illustrative examples.

Resilience is defined as being adaptable, particularly tolerating calculated risks and uncertainty, and proceeding with optimism. Being able to recover from adverse events is core to improvement, reframing them as opportunities. Adaptation and the ability to bounce back from adverse events and variation are core to improvement.

Tolerating the uncertainty of ethnographic data collection

While we did not relate these traits to any particular ethnographic approach in our studies, we would consider that undertaking any ethnographic project requires resilience, as data collection is inherently exploratory and uncertain. For example, Belanger et al. wanted to know how health care providers and their patients approach patient participation in palliative care decisions. The authors explicitly eschewed the pull to create guidelines or other formalised knowledge, but aimed to explore the “unforeseen and somewhat unavoidable ways in which discursive practices prompt or impede patient participation during these interactions.” [ 46 ]

Creativity is defined as working together to encourage fresh thinking by generating ideas and thinking critically.

Using a theoretical lens

Researchers may consider healthcare through a particular theory or framework (e.g. private ordering [ 47 ], masculine discourse [ 48 ], compassion [ 49 ]). The restriction of the theoretical lens enables critical thinking, and keeps the ethnographer creatively engaged. For example, Mylopoulos & Farhat [ 28 ] used the concept of adaptive expertise in a cognitive ethnography to explore “the phenomenon of purposeful improvement” in a teaching hospital. This theoretical lens revealed that clinicians were engaging in “invisible” improvement in their daily work, in “specific activities such as scheduling, establishing patient relationships, designing physical space and building supporting resources”. The authors suggested that these practices were devalued in comparison to more formal improvement activities, justifying the utility of the ‘adaptive expertise’ theory in bringing the daily improvement practices to light.

Challenging current problems and perspectives

We identified studies that challenged or reframed existing improvement problems e.g. Mishra [ 50 ]. This role removes the ‘blinkers’ of improvement research [ 51 ], and can ‘dissolve’ previously intractable implementation problems. For example, Boonan et al. [ 52 ] studied the practice of bar-coded medication from the perspective of nurses using the intervention. In their discussion, the authors challenge the assumption that if you introduce technology, then you will mitigate human factor risks. They highlighted that external pressures on hospitals perpetuate this perspective, and that “nurses and patients are consequently drawn into this discourse and institutional ruling, to which they are not oblivious”. Their recommendation was to understand the skills of nurses in tailoring technology to meet individual patients’ needs rather than trusting in systems blindly.

Learning is defined as harnessing curiosity and using reflective processes to extract meaning from experience.

Inviting reflection

We noted that some studies did not make explicit recommendations for improvement, but wrote their findings in a manner that would invite reflection on its subject matter. For example, Thomas & Latimer [ 53 ] wrote that they view their role as provocateurs of new ideas, stating that their intention “is not to propose specific policies or discourses designed to change or improve practice. More modestly, we hope that by analysing the everyday and by theorising the mundane, this article will ignite reflexive, ethical and pluralistic dialogues – and so better communication between practitioners, parents and the wider lay public – around reproductive technologies and medical conditions” (authors’ underline; p.951-2) [ 53 ]. Others such as Mackintosh et al [ 54 ] used their discussion section to examine their results in the context of other theories and provide illumination: “Our focus on trajectories illuminates the physiological process of birth and the unfolding pathology of illness (and death). This frame provides a means for us to link the agency of those involved in organising the care of acutely ill patients with the wider socio-political factors beyond the clinic, such as governmentality and risk (Heyman 2010, Waring 2007), death brokering (Timmermans 2005) and the medicalisation of birth and death (De Vries 1981).” (p.264). These two examples show that ethnographic work can be offered as an opportunity for learning and reflection, without a translation to specific recommendations.

Supporting a more ethical, expansive, inclusive, and participatory mode of healthcare

Problem-finding is highlighted as an important part of learning in improvement [ 19 ]. Several studies paid attention to multivocality and power, using this to find problematic, unethical and exclusive practices in healthcare. For example, some studies reported previously unheard viewpoints [ 55 – 57 ], or identified restrictive organisational barriers and normative assumptions [ 58 , 59 ]. Others promoted ethnography as a way of exploring ethics and morality [ 47 , 60 , 61 ], such as criticising research that prioritizes the needs of individuals over the good of society [ 62 ]. Ross et al. [ 63 ] suggested that it is also more ethical to use critical ethnography than other evaluative methods in researching vulnerable populations (e.g. neurological illness), by being able to “explore perceived political and emancipatory implications, [clarify] existing power differentials and [maintain] an explicit focus on action” .

Some studies directly researched power within the healthcare setting. For example, Batch and Windsor’s study of nursing workforce suggested that senior nurse leaders should use their positions to advocate for better working conditions [ 35 ], “ Manageable nurse/patient ratios, flexible patient-centred work models, equal opportunity for advancement, skill development for all and unit teamwork promotion”. Challenging traditional cultural assumptions that have produced and reproduced stereotypes is problematic because they most often are, by their very nature, invisible. In a more critical approach, Gesbeck’s thesis [ 62 ] on diabetes care work challenges the very mechanism of achieving healthcare improvement through research, stating that “we need to change the social and political context in which health care policy is made. This requires social change that prioritizes the good of the society over the good of the individual—a position directly opposed to the current system oriented toward profit and steeped in the ideology of personal responsibility.”

Systems thinking

Systems thinking is defined as seeing whole systems as well as their parts and recognising complex relationships, connections and interdependencies.

Suggesting reorientation to new ‘problem’ areas

We found that many ethnographic studies emphasised skills of synthesis and connection-making, reorienting improvement to different areas, for example in overarching policy recommendations (e.g. Hughes [ 36 ]; Liu et al. [ 64 ], Matinga et al. [ 65 ]), or resetting priorities. For example, Manias’ [ 66 ] ethnography of communication relating to family members' involvement in medication management in hospital suggests that “greater attention should be played on health professionals initiating communication in proactive ways ” [p.865]. In another example, Cable-Williams & Wilson’s (2017) focussed ethnography captures cultural factors within long-term care facilities. Their discussion suggests that acknowledgement of death is under-represented in front-line practice and government policy, reorienting discussions towards an integration of living and dying care.

Exposing hidden practices within the everyday

We found that several studies drew attention to ‘hidden’ practices in healthcare work, allowing them to evaluated and improved. For example, we found reference to practices such as coordinating [ 67 ], repair [ 68 ], caretaking [ 69 ], scaffolding [ 68 ], tinkering [ 52 ] and bricolage [ 58 ]. We also found that some studies had new interpretations of ‘the everyday’ or ‘taken-for-granted’ (e.g. nursing culture [ 34 , 35 , 45 , 70 ], interprofessional practice [ 67 , 71 – 75 ]). Authors’ outputs included frameworks [ 76 ] or models [ 69 , 71 , 77 , 78 ] that map these types of practices in a way that is helpful for intervention development or quality improvement. For example, Mackintosh et al. [ 54 ] looked at rescue practices in medical wards and maternity care settings using Strauss’s concept of the patient trajectory. Their findings highlighted the risks inherent in the wider social practices of hospital care, and suggested that improvement was needed at a level “beyond individual and team processes and technical safety solutions.”

Influencing

Influencing is defined as engaging others and gaining buy-in using a range of facilitative processes.

Direct translation of findings to targets for improvement

Lucas suggests that to be influential, ethnographic studies need to have some empathy with clinical reality, whilst being facilitative and comfortable with conflict [ 19 ]. This was shown in ethnographic studies that made pragmatic recommendations, such as in Jensen’s study of clinical simulation. They advised that simulation might be useful in staging “adverse event scenarios with a view to creating more controlled and safer environments.” ( 80). In MacKichan et al. [ 79 ] observations and interviews were used to understand how primary care access influenced decisions to seek help at the emergency department. The authors made empathic, actionable recommendations such as “ simplifying appointments systems and communicating mechanisms to patients.” (p.10).

Evaluating the context of healthcare improvement

By capturing contextual and social aspects of healthcare improvement, ethnographic evaluations can support leaders and managers who are trying to implement improvement activities. This is a particularly helpful trait in ethnographic studies that pay attention to politics, governance and social theory in their evaluation of new interventions, “zooming out” [ 80 ] beyond the patient-clinician interaction to broader social networks. For example, Tietbohl et al. [ 81 ] investigated the difficulties of implementing a patient decision support intervention (DESI) in primary care through the theoretical lens of relational coordination between “physician and clinical staff groups (healthcare professionals)”. The authors’ recommended attention to the “underlying barriers such as the relational dynamics in a medical clinic or healthcare organization” when creating policies and programs that support shared decision-making using support interventions. This sort of insight can make it more likely that new policies or interventions will succeed. This skill was particularly fertile in the tradition of techno-anthropology, exploring technology-induced errors and the real-world interaction between people and technology, e.g. decision-support tools [ 81 – 86 ], the introduction of robot caregivers [ 87 ] and clinical simulations [ 88 ]. Other approaches included an investigation of one intervention or change but with a theoretical lens of inquiry.

Summary of findings

This scoping review has identified the methodological characteristics of 5 years of published papers that self-identify as ethnography or ethnographic in the field of healthcare improvement. Ethnography is currently a popular research method in a wide range of healthcare topics, particularly in psychiatry, e.g. mental health, dementia and experiential concerns such as quality of life. Focused ethnography is a significant sub-group in healthcare, suggesting that messages about the importance of research timeliness have taken hold [ 89 ].

We have identified ethnographic methods reported in these papers, and considered their utility in developing skills and habits that support healthcare improvement. Specific practices associated with the ethnographic paradigm can encourage good habits (resilience, creativity, learning, systems thinking and influencing) in healthcare, which can support improvement. For example, using relevant theories to look at every day work in healthcare can foster creativity. The use of critical and institutional ethnography could increase skills in ‘systems thinking’ by critically evaluating how healthcare improvement problems are defined and solved, and by whom.

Comparison with previous literature

This scoping review is the first to consider how current ethnographic methods and practices may relate to healthcare improvement. Within the paradigm of applied healthcare research, there is normative value in being ‘useful’ or ‘impactful’ in our research, which affects our prospects for funding and career success [ 12 ]. However, our review has uncovered a multitude of ways that an ethnographic study can be useful in relation to healthcare improvement, without creating actionable findings. We found a spectrum of interactions with healthcare improvement: some authors explicitly eschewed recommendations or clinical implications; others made imperative statements about required changes to policy or practice. However, this diversity was not necessarily a reflection on how ‘traditional’ the ethnographic methodology was. This challenges the paper by Leslie et al. which puts ethnographic studies in two output categories with respect to healthcare improvement: critique versus feedback [ 8 ]. Instead, we uncovered a variety of ways that ethnography can support healthcare improvement habits, such as encouraging reflection, problem-finding and exposing hidden practices in healthcare.

We did find that supporting healthcare improvement through ethnographic research can require strategic effort, however. For example, we noted that several authors wrote multiple articles based on the same project, often for different types of journal to reach different audiences such as diverse readerships in health services and academic settings. For example, Collier and colleagues published two papers based on a video ethnography of end-of-life care (both in 2016), one in a healthcare quality journal [ 32 ] and one in a qualitative research journal [ 76 ]. The former is shorter, with explicit recommendations for patient safety, whereas the latter is longer, has more detailed results and long sections on reflexivity. Similarly, Grant published an article in a sociology journal [ 90 ] and a healthcare improvement paper [ 91 ] on the same work about medication safety. The sociological paper covered “spatio-temporal elements of articulation work” whereas the other put forward “key stages” and risks, suggesting that it was more closely oriented to improvement.

There have been some considerable debates about changes in ethnographic methods and tools, with concerns about lost researcher identity, dilution of the method, and challenges to “upholding ethnographic integrity” [ 92 ] . We contest this, suggesting that new variants such as focussed and cognitive ethnography are evolving in response to the complexity of hospitals and healthcare [ 93 ], while also being highly regulated, standardised and ordered by biomedicine. Such complex environments cannot be studied and improved under one paradigm alone. Ethnographic identity and method have also been affected by the cross-pollination of ethnography with other social science paradigms and applied environments (e.g. clinical trials, technology development). Debates about theoretical and methodological choices are not only made merely with respect to healthcare improvement, but also in response to professional pressures (e.g. university requirements for impact) [ 12 ], and the mores of taste situated within the overlapping communities of practice that evaluate ethnographic healthcare research [ 94 ]. That said, we echo previous authors’ calls for attention to reflexivity, particularly in embedded or clinician-as-researcher roles [ 95 ].

Our scoping review challenges a previously expressed concern that ethnographic studies may not produce findings that are useful for improvement [ 10 , 12 , 16 ]. By considering different ethnographic designs in relation to skills and habits needed for improvement, we have shown that studies need not necessarily produce ‘actionable findings’ in order to make a valuable contribution. Instead, we would characterise ethnography’s role in the canon of healthcare research methodologies as a way of enhancing improvement habits such as comfort with conflict, problem-finding and connection-making.

Strengths and limitations

This review has a number of limitations. The search may not have found all relevant studies, however the retrieved papers are intended as an exemplar rather than an exhaustive or aggregative review. The review is also limited to journal articles as evidence of researchers’ approach to improvement. This ignores many other ‘offline’ and ‘online’ activities such as meetings, presentations, blogs, books, and websites, which are conducted to disseminate findings and ideas. Our reliance on self-report for the identification of ethnographic studies will have excluded some studies within an ethnographic paradigm who chose different terms for their methodology (e.g. critical inquiry, case study). The strengths of this paper are its comprehensive coverage, incorporating all representative studies in healthcare research published within a five year period, and a wide range of ethnographic sub-types and healthcare subjects, drawn from an international pool of research communities.

We did not prescribe the right way for ethnographers to engage in healthcare improvement, indeed, we have identified that a variety of approaches can be relevant to improvement. The habits we identified may help ethnographers reflect on their approaches in planning healthcare improvement studies and guide peer-review in this field. Issues of taste, traditionalism and researcher identity need to be scrutinised in favour of value and audience. An important area of future research will be to understand how ethnographic findings are received by decision-makers, and further focused reviews on the relationship(s) between ethnographic methods, quality improvement skills and improvement outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Lorelei Jones, Natalie Armstrong, Justin Waring and Bill Lucas for their insightful comments and direction in the undertaking of this work.

Authors’ contributions

NJF and GB led the development and conceptualization of this scoping review and provided guidance on methods and design of the scoping review. GB, SVO and SM made contributions to study search, study screening, and all data extraction work. All authors analysed the data. All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the paper, and all authors have read and approved the manuscript.

This paper is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research CLAHRC North Thames. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. GB is supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

The original online version of this article was revised: due to incorrect figure 1 and the number of included papers need to be changed from "283" to "274".

Publisher’s Note

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

Change history

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1186/s12874-022-01587-9

Home » Education » Difference Between Case Study and Ethnography

Difference Between Case Study and Ethnography

Main difference – case study vs ethnography.

Case studies and ethnographies are two popular detailed, qualitative studies used in the field of social science . Although there are certain similarities between these two methods such as their holistic nature, and the extended time period, there are also some differences between the two. The main difference between case study and ethnography is their focus; ethnography aims to explore cultural phenomenon whereas case studies aim to describe the nature of phenomena through a detailed investigation of individual cases.

What is a Case Study

A case study is a detailed investigation of a single event, situation or an individual in order to explore and unearth complex issues. Yin (1984) defines case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” Although case studies are always associated with qualitative research, they can also be quantitative in nature. They are often used to explore community-based issued such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, prostitution, and drug addiction.

A successful case study is context-sensitive, holistic, systematic, layered and comprehensive. The process of a case study involves,

• Identifying and defining the research questions
• Selecting the cases and deciding techniques for data collection and analysis
• Collecting data in the field
• Evaluating and analysing the data
• Preparing the report

Data collection methods in a case study may involve interviews, observations, questionnaires, checklists, analysis of recorded data and opinionnaires. Case studies can also be divided into different categories. Exploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies are three such categories.

Case studies are preferred by many researchers in the field of social sciences since they offer detailed and in-depth information about a particular phenomenon. However, it is difficult to use the data obtained from a case study to form generalisation since it only focuses on a single event or phenomenon.

Figure 1: Questionnaires are one method of data collection in a case study.

What is an Ethnography

Ethnography is a detailed and in-depth study of everyday life and practice. In other words, it is the systematic study of people and cultures. A researcher who is engaged in ethnography is known as an ethnographer . Ethnographers explore and study culture from an insider’s point of view (emic perspective).

Ethnography traditionally involved focusing on a bounded and a definable race, ethnicity or group of people; for example, study of a particular African tribe. However, modern ethnography also focus on different aspects of the contemporary social life.

Ethnographic research mainly involves field observations, i.e., observations of behaviour in a natural setting. The researchers have to spend a considerable amount of time inside a community in order to make such observations. Information about particular socio-cultural phenomena in a community is typically obtained from the members of that particular community. Participant observation and interviews are two of the main data collection methods in this type of studies. Ethnographic studies take a longer period of time than other types of research since it takes long-term involvement and observation to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of a community.

Figure 2: Observation and participant interviews are main data collection methods in ethnography.

Definition 

Case Study: A case study is a detailed investigation of a single event, situation or an individual in order to explore and unearth complex issues.

Ethnography: An ethnography is the detailed and systematic study of people and cultures.

Case Study: Case studies focus on a single event, incident or individual.

Ethnography: Ethnography observes cultural phenomenon.

Case study: Case study intends to uncover the tacit knowledge of culture participants.

Ethnography: Ethnography aims to describe the nature of phenomena through detailed investigations of individual cases.

Data Collection Methods

Case Study: Case studies may use interviews, observations, questionnaires, checklists, analysis of recorded data and opinionnaires.

Ethnography: Ethnographic studies use participant observations and interviews.

Special Requirements

Case Study: The researcher does not have to live in a particular community.

Ethnography: The researcher has to spend a considerable amount time inside that particular community.

Conclusion 

Case study and ethnography may have some similarities; however, there is a considerable difference between case study and ethnography as explained above. The main difference between case study and ethnography lies in their intent and focus; case studies intend to uncover the tacit knowledge of culture participants whereas ethnographic studies intend to describe the nature of phenomena through detailed investigations of individual cases. There are also differences between them in terms of data collection and analyis. 

• Cohen, Arie. “Ethnography and case study: a comparative analysis.”  Academic Exchange Quarterly  7.3 (2003): 283-288.
• Yin, Robert. “Case study research. Beverly Hills.” (1984).

Image Courtesy:

• “plings_005” by  Plings   (CC BY 2.0)  via Flickr
• “Bronisław Malinowski among Trobriand tribe 3”  By Unknown (maybe Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, 1885-1939) (Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

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

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

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

Metrics details

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

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

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

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

Study registration

NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality improvement collaboratives

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

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

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

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

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

Warranted and unwarranted variation in clinical practice

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

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

Research question, aims and objectives

Research question.

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

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

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

Our original objectives were to:

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

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

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

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

The LOCOMOTION study

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

Setting up the quality improvement collaborative

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

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

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

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

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

How evidence-informed quality targets were set

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

Adding an ethnographic component

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

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

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

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

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

Data management and analysis

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

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

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

Member checking

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

Overview of dataset

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

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

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

The ten participating sites are summarized in Table  1 .

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

“Best practice” in long covid: uncertainty and conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long covid clinics: a heterogeneous context for quality improvement

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

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

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

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

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

The patient experience

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

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

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

Example quality topic 1: Outcome measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example quality topic 3: Management of fatigue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuing local quality improvement through MDTs

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

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

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

Summary of key findings

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

Strengths and limitations of this study

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

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

Explaining variation in long covid care

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomothetic versus idiographic knowledge

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Abbreviations

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Intensive care unit

Jenny Ceolta-Smith

Julie Darbyshire

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and services across the NHS

Multidisciplinary team

Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

National Aeronautics and Space Association

Occupational therapy/ist

Post-exertional symptom exacerbation

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

Speech and language therapy

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Trisha Greenhalgh

United Kingdom

United States

World Health Organization

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie L. Darbyshire & Emma Ladds

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trisha Greenhalgh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

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

Consent for publication

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

Competing interests

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 15 April 2024

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

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

• Get involved

• Targeted and Inclusive Approaches to Tackling Energy Poverty in a Crisis Context: Case Study from Moldova pdf (0.6 MB)

Targeted and Inclusive Approaches to Tackling Energy Poverty in a Crisis Context: Case Study from Moldova

April 15, 2024.

According to UNDP estimates from the early days of the energy crisis in Moldova, 71 percent of households were in the most vulnerable energy category, spending 90 percent or more of their available income—after the minimum expenditure—on energy and heating during the cold period. Highly dependent on energy imports, the country risked tripling its population living in poverty from 11 to 35 percent. In the context of a compounded crisis and the war in Ukraine, the Moldovan Government, in close collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), developed an innovative and targeted on-bill energy compensation mechanism, the first of its kind in Moldova, the Energy Vulnerability Reduction Fund (EVRF). 

The aim of EVRF is to create an inclusive solution that minimizes the negative impacts of the sharp increase in energy prices on energy-vulnerable and income-poor households, therefore safeguarding social cohesion. At the same time, in the longer term, the EVRF aims to incentivize the transition towards sustainable energy sources and to achieve higher levels of energy efficiency in the residential sector. 

This paper presents the main outcomes of the UNDP support for the establishment and implementation of a robust EVRF, along with an impact assessment and lessons learned that are applicable to other country contexts.  

Document Type

Regions and countries, sustainable development goals, related publications.

Publications

Accelerating the green transition: socioecological system....

This paper explores lessons and insights from a new generation of integrated local solutions that have emerged across the region to manage risks and build resil...

Bridging Gender Gaps with a Sustainable Care Economy: Inv...

Besides emphasis on SDG 5, this policy brief focuses on opportunities and challenges in scaling a sustainable care economy to create new sources of fair jobs an...

How Do Investments in Human Capital Development Affect SD...

This brief underscore the transformative impact of an integrated Human Capital Development approach in Malawi, whereby policy design, planning and programme imp...

How Likely Are We to Achieve the SDGs at the Current Pace...

This policy brief analyses the possible convergence of SDG indicators for Colombia.

Identifying Key Priorities and Regional Development Gaps ...

We propose a systematic approach for the creation of local agendas that identify development gaps, while fostering the multidimensionality and interconnectivity...

Localizing Multidimensional Poverty Assessments for Inclu...

This experience of data processing shows that existing data at the supra-communal level can be used to infer useful indicators that uncover the most deprived pe...

• 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

Case Study: How Aggressively Should a Bank Pursue AI?

• Thomas H. Davenport
• George Westerman

A Malaysia-based CEO weighs the risks and potential benefits of turning a traditional bank into an AI-first institution.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-based NVF Bank, faces a pivotal decision. Her head of AI innovation, a recent recruit from Google, has a bold plan. It requires a substantial investment but aims to transform the traditional bank into an AI-first institution, substantially reducing head count and the number of branches. The bank’s CFO worries they are chasing the next hype cycle and cautions against valuing efficiency above all else. Siti must weigh the bank’s mixed history with AI, the resistance to losing the human touch in banking services, and the risks of falling behind in technology against the need for a prudent, incremental approach to innovation.

Two experts offer advice: Noemie Ellezam-Danielo, the chief digital and AI strategy at Société Générale, and Sastry Durvasula, the chief information and client services officer at TIAA.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-headquartered NVF Bank, hurried through the corridors of the university’s computer engineering department. She had directed her driver to the wrong building—thinking of her usual talent-recruitment appearances in the finance department—and now she was running late. As she approached the room, she could hear her head of AI innovation, Michael Lim, who had joined NVF from Google 18 months earlier, breaking the ice with the students. “You know, NVF used to stand for Never Very Fast,” he said to a few giggles. “But the bank is crawling into the 21st century.”

• Thomas H. Davenport is the President’s Distinguished Professor of Information Technology and Management at Babson College, a visiting scholar at the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, and a senior adviser to Deloitte’s AI practice. He is a coauthor of All-in on AI: How Smart Companies Win Big with Artificial Intelligence (Harvard Business Review Press, 2023).
• George Westerman is a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and a coauthor of Leading Digital (HBR Press, 2014).

Partner Center

The Biology Corner

Biology Teaching Resources

Case Study – Carrying Capacity and Rabbits

European settlers introduced rabbits to both England and Australia. In the absence of natural predators, rabbits were able to multiply rapidly and establish large populations. Rabbits are prolific breeders, with females capable of producing several litters of offspring each year. This high reproductive rate allows rabbit populations to grow exponentially under favorable conditions.

The case begins with the historic introduction of rabbits to England in the 12th century. Originally, humans imported rabbits for hunting as as a food source. The rabbit populations quickly grew out of control, damaging the ecosystem. For instance, native herbivores, like deer were impacted. Rabbits even caused erosion damage to soil, further limiting biodiversity.

Students learn that in most cases, animal populations have limiting factors that keep their numbers at a near stable level, the carrying capacity . Without limiting factors, the population can grow exponentially, as the rabbits did.

Next, students learn that the population of rabbits, having eaten all the vegetation, had a massive die off. Not all rabbits died, and their numbers recover quickly, known as a “Boom and Bust Cycle.” In both areas where rabbits were introduced, humans tried a number of measures to control the population. These included hunting and poisoning rabbits to reduce their numbers. However, none of the measures have worked well. In other areas, the myxoma virus reduced rabbit population numbers, though over time, the virus has become less effective. Go, evolution!

Finally, students examine a graph showing a logistic growth pattern. Limiting factors, such as food availability and predation, will keep the number of rabbits near the carrying capacity. In some areas of Europe, ecologists reintroduced the lynx, which is a natural predator of rabbits and helped to control the rabbit populations. A follow-up activity explores the lynx and conservation efforts.

Related Activities

Case Study – Loggerhead Turtles and Population Models  – explore the number of eggs hatched and survivorship

Ecology Case Study – The Wolves of Isle Royale  – population decline and reintroduction of wolves

Predator Prey Graph  – graph data on deer and wolf populations (growth curves)

Saving a Fussy Predator – reintroduction of the lynx to control rabbit populations

Rabbit Skeleton – model for use in comparative anatomy, showing teeth and skeletal features

Rabbit Digestive System – label the rabbit digestive system for comparative anatomy units

Advertisement

Supported by

For Filmmakers, O.J. Simpson’s Trial Was a Powerful Case Study

In 2016, both an FX mini-series and an ESPN documentary re-examined the polarizing criminal accusations against Simpson and the nation’s divided conversation about race.

• Share full article

By Emmanuel Morgan

More than 20 years after the O.J. Simpson trial, long after the headlines had faded and the news cycle had moved on to other scandals, the polarizing saga was thrust back into the national conversation thanks to two very different projects.

“ The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story ,” an FX mini-series directed by Ryan Murphy, won nine Emmys in 2016. That year’s “ O.J.: Made in America, ” a nearly eight-hour film for ESPN, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature.

“It was a story that combined everything that obsesses the American people,” the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the day after Simpson died at 76 . Toobin’s 1996 book, “The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson,” inspired the FX series.

Toobin said the Simpson odyssey captivated the country’s psyche. There was love, violence, sports and Hollywood. Even a fugitive on the run.

Simpson had been a star football player , winning the Heisman Trophy in college and the Most Valuable Player Award in the N.F.L. But for many people, his athletic highlights are overshadowed by a highway chase involving a white Ford Bronco and murder charges in the 1994 deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald L. Goldman.

As Americans followed the nine-month trial, their perception of the criminal case against Simpson, a prominent Black athlete who became an actor and a pitchman , was often split along racial lines. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case and was later found liable for the deaths in a civil trial .

“I think the reason it still feels so raw is that it still feels like it’s today,” said Larry Karaszewski, a screenwriter for the FX mini-series. “A lot of times people think we’re at this post-racial moment, but it keeps coming back.”

Karaszewski said that like during Simpson’s trial, race was at the forefront of the national conversation when “The People v. O.J. Simpson” was being produced, during the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watchman in 2012.

The mini-series focused on the Simpson trial, treating him as a secondary character while highlighting other key players in the courtroom , like Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor, and Johnnie Cochran, one of Simpson’s prominent defense lawyers.

In contrast, ESPN’s documentary, an installment of the sports network’s “30 for 30” series, traced Simpson’s biography and contextualized it through the sports and socioeconomic history of the Los Angeles region. Its director, Ezra Edelman, has said he thought it was important to take that wider view.

“I was interested in the 30 years before the murders, the city, race and identity, and the juxtaposition with O.J.’s story,” he told The New York Times in 2016 . “This is a big American studies paper. This touches on everything in our culture.”

Through an ESPN spokeswoman, Edelman declined to comment after Simpson’s death. Several of the documentary’s producers did not respond to requests for comment.

Karaszewski said the distance from the trial allowed viewers of the FX series to watch the case with fresh eyes, without the emotional response to the verdict. And he and Toobin agreed that it also presented the saga and its characters — including Robert Kardashian, a defense lawyer whose family’s fame grew after the case — to new audiences.

“For those of us who lived through it, it brought it back up,” Toobin said, “but it introduced a whole generation of people who had no firsthand experience with the story.”

Emmanuel Morgan reports on sports, pop culture and entertainment. More about Emmanuel Morgan