Interactive tool

Study Design Decision Guide

Answer a few questions about your research aim and get a recommended study design — with strengths, limitations, Uganda-specific notes, and relevant templates.

This guide is a starting point. Discuss your final design choice with your supervisor before writing your proposal.

Question 1

What is the primary aim of your study?

Choose the option that best describes what you are trying to find out — not the method you already have in mind.

Reference

Common study designs explained

A practical reference for researchers in Uganda and similar settings — when to use each design, what it is good for, and one common limitation to plan for.

Cross-sectional study

When to use it: When you want a snapshot of a population at one point in time — for example, the prevalence of a condition, attitude, or behaviour in a district.
Good for: Estimating how common something is, describing a population, and generating hypotheses for further research.
Common limitation: You cannot tell what caused what — exposure and outcome are measured at the same moment.

Cohort study

When to use it: When you can follow a group of people over time to see who develops an outcome — useful when an exposure is already happening (e.g. occupational, environmental).
Good for: Estimating incidence and the strength of association between an exposure and a later outcome.
Common limitation: Often expensive and slow; loss to follow-up can bias results, especially in mobile populations.

Case-control study

When to use it: When the outcome is rare or takes a long time to develop, and you want to look back at what might have caused it.
Good for: Studying rare diseases or outcomes quickly and at lower cost than a cohort study.
Common limitation: Vulnerable to recall bias and selection bias — choosing the right controls is hard.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT)

When to use it: When you want to test whether a specific intervention (a drug, training, programme) causes a change, and randomisation is ethical and feasible.
Good for: Strong causal inference — the gold standard for evaluating interventions.
Common limitation: Expensive, ethically demanding, and findings from highly controlled trials may not generalise to everyday clinic or community settings.

Qualitative study

When to use it: When you want to understand experiences, meanings, processes, or context — for example, why a programme works in one community and not another.
Good for: Depth, nuance, and surfacing local realities that surveys often miss.
Common limitation: Findings are not designed to be statistically generalised; quality depends heavily on the rigour of analysis and reflexivity.

Mixed methods study

When to use it: When a single method cannot answer your question — e.g. you need both the size of a problem and the reasons behind it.
Good for: Combining breadth (numbers) and depth (experiences), and triangulating findings.
Common limitation: Demands more time, more skills, and a clear plan for how the two strands inform each other — otherwise it becomes two studies in one report.

Systematic review

When to use it: When enough primary studies already exist on a question and you want to synthesise the evidence transparently.
Good for: Summarising what is known, identifying gaps, and informing policy or practice decisions.
Common limitation: Only as good as the underlying studies — and can be undermined by publication bias and heterogeneous methods.

These summaries are starting points, not substitutes for methodological textbooks or supervisor input. The right design depends on your specific question, resources, and context.

Related templates

Category · Study Design