PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3064285

Small sample studies: unique contributions for large sample outcome studies.

Abstract

There are many important issues relevant to the course of illness and outcome of chronic psychiatric disorders that are not readily amenable to investigation with existing large sample, quantitative methodology. For example, complex interactive phenomena that change over time, such as the longitudinal impact of changes in social and work function on levels of symptomatology, are particularly difficult to quantify and assess in large n studies. Small sample studies are advantageous because they offer the ability to examine the longitudinal interplay of a wide range of variables in individual patients. The small n approach is useful for delineating important new course variables, developing models of course change, and generating unique research hypotheses. In this article, small sample "qualitative" methodology is reviewed, and data derived from recent small n, intensive longitudinal studies are presented. Methodological issues related to addressing qualitative data in large sample, controlled studies are addressed, and specific research hypotheses generated by small sample studies for consideration in future large sample outcome studies are suggested. It is concluded that small sample studies offer unique contributions to the understanding of the determinants of course of illness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Breier. 1988. Small sample studies: unique contributions for large sample outcome studies.. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul%2F14.4.589

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Factors influencing neurological care].

OBJECTIVE: To analyse certain factors which contribute to the existing backlog in specialised neurological care, such as: where the patient was referred from, the reason for the appointment, tests carried out and the final diagnosis. We used a random sample of patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients referred from Primary Care, who were attended as out-patients in the Neurology clinic during 1991. SITE. Health Area 2 of the Autonomous Community of Madrid. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The average number of patients per doctor sent from each one of the seven Centres studied was 7.69, with outliers of between 2 and 21, with a standard deviation of 3.95 and a rate of 51.31%. The proportion of new patients to patients having follow-up checks was 2 to 3, respectively. The differences between the number of patients sent from the different centres were found in the less serious pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the criteria used by Primary Care professionals and specialists should be strengthened and unified. This was one of the factors which weighed most on the quality and backlog of care.

Follow-Up Studies