Which of the following is NOT an advantage of prospective cohort studies?

In evaluating prospective cohort studies, it's essential to understand their strengths and limitations within the realm of epidemiological research. While prospective cohort studies offer many advantages, one notable aspect that distinguishes them is related to their costs.

Typically, prospective cohort studies require significant investment in time and resources because they involve following a group of individuals over time to observe the development of outcomes based on exposures. This long-term follow-up involves costs associated with data collection, participant retention, and management, often making them more expensive than case-control studies, which look backward at existing outcomes and exposures.

The advantages of prospective cohort studies prominently include the ability to allow precise measurements of exposure, as data is collected in real-time, reducing likelihood for inaccuracies. Additionally, these studies minimize recall bias since they follow subjects over time, eliminating the reliance on participants to remember past exposures. Furthermore, they have the added advantage of allowing researchers to study multiple disease outcomes from a single exposure, offering a broad perspective on health-related effects.

Consequently, when considering the financial aspect, it becomes clear that the statement regarding prospective cohort studies costing less than case-control studies does not hold true, making it the correct identification of an option that does not represent an advantage of this study design.