literature review study

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  

556 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• 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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a crucial section in research that examines existing studies and publications related to a specific topic. It summarizes and synthesizes previous findings, identifies gaps, and provides context for the current research. RRL ensures the research is grounded in established knowledge, guiding the direction and focus of new studies.

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a detailed analysis of existing research relevant to a specific topic. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes previous studies to identify trends, gaps, and conflicts in the literature. RRL provides a foundation for new research, ensuring it builds on established knowledge and addresses existing gaps.

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a critical part of any research paper or thesis . It provides an overview of existing research on your topic and helps to establish the context for your study. Here is a typical format for an RRL:

1. Introduction

• Purpose : Explain the purpose of the review and its importance to your research.
• Scope : Define the scope of the literature reviewed, including the time frame, types of sources, and key themes.

2. Theoretical Framework

• Concepts and Theories : Present the main theories and concepts that underpin your research.
• Relevance : Explain how these theories relate to your study.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

• Sub-theme 1 : Summarize key studies, including methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Sub-theme 2 : Continue summarizing studies, focusing on different aspects or variables.
• Sub-theme 3 : Include any additional relevant studies.

4. Methodological Review

• Approaches : Discuss the various methodologies used in the reviewed studies.
• Strengths and Weaknesses : Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies.
• Gaps : Identify gaps in the existing research that your study aims to address.

5. Synthesis and Critique

• Integration : Integrate findings from the reviewed studies to show the current state of knowledge.
• Critique : Critically evaluate the literature, discussing inconsistencies, limitations, and areas for further research.

6. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Research Gap : Clearly state the research gap your study will address.
• Contribution : Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

7. References

• Citation Style : List all the sources cited in your literature review in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Review of Related Literature (RRL) 1. Introduction This review examines research on social media’s impact on mental health, focusing on anxiety and depression across various demographics over the past ten years. 2. Theoretical Framework Anchored in Social Comparison Theory and Uses and Gratifications Theory, this review explores how individuals’ social media interactions affect their mental health. 3. Review of Empirical Studies Adolescents’ Mental Health Instagram & Body Image : Smith & Johnson (2017) found Instagram use linked to body image issues and lower self-esteem among 500 high school students. Facebook & Anxiety : Brown & Green (2016) showed Facebook use correlated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal study of 300 students. Young Adults’ Mental Health Twitter & Stress : Davis & Lee (2018) reported higher stress levels among heavy Twitter users in a survey of 400 university students. LinkedIn & Self-Esteem : Miller & White (2019) found LinkedIn use positively influenced professional self-esteem in 200 young professionals. Adult Mental Health General Social Media Use : Thompson & Evans (2020) found moderate social media use associated with better mental health outcomes, while excessive use correlated with higher anxiety and depression in 1,000 adults. 4. Methodological Review Studies used cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal designs, and mixed methods. Cross-sectional surveys provided large data sets but couldn’t infer causation. Longitudinal studies offered insights into long-term effects but were resource-intensive. Mixed methods enriched data through qualitative insights but required careful integration. 5. Synthesis and Critique The literature shows a complex relationship between social media and mental health, with platform-specific and demographic-specific effects. However, reliance on self-reported data introduces bias, and many cross-sectional studies limit causal inference. More longitudinal and experimental research is needed. 6. Conclusion Current research offers insights into social media’s mental health impact but leaves gaps, particularly regarding long-term effects and causation. This study aims to address these gaps through comprehensive longitudinal analysis. 7. References Brown, A., & Green, K. (2016). Facebook Use and Anxiety Among High School Students . Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 257-264. Davis, R., & Lee, S. (2018). Twitter and Psychological Stress: A Study of University Students . Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 120-135. Miller, P., & White, H. (2019). LinkedIn and Its Effect on Professional Self-Esteem . Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 78-90. Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2017). The Impact of Instagram on Teen Body Image . Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(5), 555-560. Thompson, M., & Evans, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Mental Health in Adults . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 201-208.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

Review of related literature in research, review of related literature in research paper, review of related literature qualitative research.

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

• Impact of E-learning on Student Performance
• Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Workplace
• Green Building and Energy Efficiency
• Impact of Technology on Healthcare Delivery
• Effects of Nutrition on Cognitive Development in Children
• Impact of Employee Training Programs on Productivity
• Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Impact of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Effects of Mobile Learning on Student Engagement
• Effects of Urban Green Spaces on Mental Health

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) serves several critical purposes in research:

• Establishing Context : It situates your research within the broader field, showing how your study relates to existing work.
• Identifying Gaps : It highlights gaps, inconsistencies, and areas needing further exploration in current knowledge, providing a clear rationale for your study.
• Avoiding Duplication : By reviewing what has already been done, it helps ensure your research is original and not a repetition of existing studies.
• Building on Existing Knowledge : It allows you to build on the findings of previous research, using established theories and methodologies to inform your work.
• Theoretical Foundation : It provides a theoretical basis for your research, grounding it in existing concepts and theories.
• Methodological Insights : It offers insights into the methods and approaches used in similar studies, helping you choose the most appropriate methods for your research.
• Establishing Credibility : It demonstrates your familiarity with the field, showing that you are well-informed and have a solid foundation for your research.
• Supporting Arguments : It provides evidence and support for your research questions, hypotheses, and objectives, strengthening the overall argument of your study.

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Writing a Review of Related Literature (RRL) involves several key steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Determine the Scope : Decide on the breadth of the literature you will review, including specific themes, time frame, and types of sources.
• Set Objectives : Clearly define the purpose of the review. What do you aim to achieve? Identify gaps, establish context, or build on existing knowledge.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

• Identify Keywords : Use keywords and phrases related to your research topic.
• Use Databases : Search academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc., for relevant articles, books, and papers.
• Select Sources : Choose sources that are credible, recent, and relevant to your research.

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

• Read Abstracts and Summaries : Quickly determine the relevance of each source.
• Assess Quality : Consider the methodology, credibility of the authors, and publication source.
• Select Key Studies : Choose studies that are most relevant to your research questions and objectives.

4. Organize the Literature

• Thematic Organization : Group studies by themes or topics.
• Chronological Organization : Arrange studies in the order they were published to show the development of ideas over time.
• Methodological Organization : Categorize studies by the methods they used.

5. Write the Review

• State the purpose and scope of the review.
• Explain the importance of the topic.
• Theoretical Framework : Present and discuss the main theories and concepts.
• Summarize key studies, including their methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Organize by themes or other chosen organizational methods.
• Methodological Review : Discuss the various methodologies used, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
• Synthesis and Critique : Integrate findings, critically evaluate the literature, and identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the research gaps your study will address.
• State how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

6. Cite the Sources

• Use Appropriate Citation Style : Follow the required citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• List References : Provide a complete list of all sources cited in your review.

What is an RRL?

An RRL summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic to identify gaps and guide future studies.

Why is RRL important?

It provides context, highlights gaps, and ensures new research builds on existing knowledge.

How do you write an RRL?

Organize by themes, summarize studies, evaluate methodologies, identify gaps, and conclude with relevance to current research.

What sources are used in RRL?

Peer-reviewed journals, books, conference papers, and credible online resources.

How long should an RRL be?

Length varies; typically 10-20% of the total research paper.

What are common RRL mistakes?

Lack of organization, insufficient synthesis, over-reliance on outdated sources, and failure to identify gaps.

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

Primarily scholarly, but reputable non-scholarly sources can be included for context.

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

RRL synthesizes and analyzes the literature, while a bibliography lists sources.

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

Yes, it identifies gaps and trends that shape the focus and methodology of new research.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Collections
• Editor's Choice
• Ilona Kickbusch Award
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Online
• Open Access Option
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Health Promotion International
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, supplementary material, authorship contributions, acknowledgements, data availability, unleashing the potential of health promotion in primary care—a scoping literature review.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Adela Bisak, Martin Stafström, Unleashing the potential of Health Promotion in primary care—a scoping literature review, Health Promotion International , Volume 39, Issue 3, June 2024, daae044, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae044

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the role and extent of health promotion lifestyle interventions targeting adults in primary care, and especially those who are considered overall healthy, i.e. to study the outcomes of research applying salutogenesis. We performed a literature review, with three specific aims. First, to identify studies that have targeted the healthy population in intervention within the primary health care field with health promotion activities. Second, to describe these interventions in terms of which health problems they have targeted and what the interventions have entailed. Third, to assess what these programs have resulted in, in terms of health outcomes. This scoping review of 42 studies, that applied salutogenesis in primary care interventions shows that health promotion targeting healthy individuals is relevant and effective. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting on scoping review were used. Most interventions were successful in reducing disease-related risks including CVD, CVD mortality, all-cause mortality, but even more importantly success in behavioural change, sustained at follow-up. Additionally, this review shows that health promotion lifestyle interventions can improve mental health, even when having different aims.

This article describes the importance of including healthy individuals in health promotion activities, applying salutogenesis, as there are significant positive health outcomes effects if they participate in health interventions.

The study amplifies that the prevention paradox should always be considered when designing health promotion interventions.

This article shows that the greatest effects when targeting healthy individuals are found in lower all-cause mortality and CVD risks, mainly because these programs manage to lead to long-lasting lifestyle changes.

Health Promotion is, according to Nutbeam and Muscat (2021 , p. 1580), ‘[…] the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health’. This process entails a comprehensive approach to change on all levels, from structures to individuals, improving health mainly through addressing the social determinants of health.

Whereas the most overarching processes are initiated on a structural level through global and national health policies ( Cross et al ., 2020 ), health promotion strategies are also widely employed in health interventions targeting individuals. It could entail smoking cessation programs, weight loss programs and adolescent alcohol use, just to mention some common health outcome target areas ( Green et al. , 2019 ). Even when deploying health promotion strategies at a national policy level, it is not uncommon that the programs designed to target individuals and groups are more inspired by pathogenesis, rather than salutogenesis ( Nutbeam and Muscat, 2021 ).

A widespread strategy in the latter programs is that individuals are screened for a need to receive an intervention, so-called secondary or indicated prevention programs, where those who report a riskier lifestyle, or test worse on psychometric or biometric indicators are eligible for receiving the intervention, and those not having the same risks are excluded from the program on the premise that they are, based on study protocol definitions, healthy individuals.

Based on the principles of salutogenesis, this is a somewhat inappropriate approach. Within the strategy of health promotion, it is assumed that all people, no matter their level of risk, would find feedback on their health valuable. Those in need of change should receive the necessary resources and tools to change, whereas those who do not have to change should have their lifestyles positively reinforced. In addition, the prevention paradox ( Rose, 1981 ) postulates that it is important to address the majority, as there will be plenty of adverse health outcomes stemming from them. In conventional indicated prevention programs, attention to those who are non-eligible for interventions is, thus, often completely disregarded.

One common arena for such programs is primary health care. There is a wide range of evidence-based programs that have shown efficacy in reducing the health risks among those who have the riskiest lifestyles in relation to, e.g. alcohol use ( Beyer et al ., 2019 ), smoking ( Cantera et al ., 2015 ), depression ( Bortolotti et al ., 2008 ), diabetes ( Galaviz et al ., 2018 ) and cardiovascular diseases ( Álvarez-Bueno et al. , 2015 ). The at-risk groups vary across the different diseases, but a vast majority of patients targeted in the above studies were identified after screening as non-eligible to participate in the intervention in question. From this follows that a large number of individuals do not receive any substantial health information, nor are their health outcomes measured as they are not included in the intervention. From a health promotion perspective, this seems like a lost opportunity. Additionally, this raises the question of whether a healthy population is systematically disadvantaged compared to those individuals at high risk, which might point to some less-known health inequities or disparities ( Braveman, 2006 ) present in primary care.

In order to gain a better understanding of the effects of health promotion as an overall approach, and to understand the implications of the prevention paradox, it would be pertinent to include the non-eligible group in both the feedback loop—mainly offering them structured positive reinforcement—and to subsequently measure their health and attributed lifestyles.

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the role and extent of health promotion lifestyle interventions targeting adults in primary care, especially those who are considered overall healthy. More precisely we aim to assess to what extent health promotion practices in primary care address healthy individuals, not only those who need to undergo a lifestyle change. In order to do so, we performed a literature review, with three specific aims. First, to identify studies that have only targeted the healthy population, or healthy population in addition to high-risk group in intervention within the primary health care field with health promotion activities. Second, to describe these interventions in terms of which health problems they have targeted and what the interventions have entailed. Third, to assess what the initiatives published in the research literature have resulted in terms of health outcomes.

Due to the width of the topic and study designs we chose to perform a scoping review, with the aim of summarizing and disseminating previous research and identifying research gaps in the literature ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ). The search process was iterative and non-linear, reflecting upon the results from the literature search at each stage and then repeating steps where necessary to cover the literature more comprehensively ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ).

A few terms demand some further definition within the scope of this review . Healthy individual is a fluid term varying across different studies and contexts, yet it is a key concept in this particular study. The term involves those without chronic disease, who are indicated as not being of an elevated risk of developing a disease linked to the health outcome they have been screened for, but they could very well be at risk for diseases beyond the scope of the study they have been examined within. Primary health care may in this review indicates different types of settings from the most common one relating to general practitioners and family doctors to occupational medicine or periodical work-related health check-ups but also dental health care. Health promotion interventions in this study are understood as interventions that aim to keep people healthy longer, by providing positive feedback in relation to current and new health behaviours, rather than controlling health status by medication use.

Search strategy

The search was done across two databases PubMed and Embase, by combining different strings related to keywords ‘health promotion’ and ‘primary care’, while the rest of the strings varied, more specific search queries are available in Supplementary Appendix A . The search was conducted during June and July 2023 and consisted of publications dated between July 2008 and July 2023 (i.e. the last 15 years). Additional studies were identified manually from references of the included articles and by ‘See all similar articles’ option in PubMed and ‘similar records’ in Embase. The article titles were scanned from databases, followed by screening titles and abstracts through the Covidence software, and then finally the full articles were read. Results were filtered for adult humans, defined as age 18–75, abstracts being available and the studies were authored in English.

Articles were included if (i) the population consisted of working-age adults, (ii) the population included those screened as healthy within a whole sample followed by an intervention or interventions ideally at follow-up, (iii) the study focused on primary prevention (iv) the study focused on lifestyle interventions, (v) the study examined lifestyle-related behaviours. Exclusion criteria for papers were (i) focused on children—below the age of 18 or elderly, (ii) addiction behaviours, (iii) excluding healthy individuals from intervention after screening or using them exclusively in the control group, (iv) using only high-risk population as healthy, (v) promoting only mental health, (vi) secondary prevention, (vii) screening is the only intervention, (viii) reviews and study protocols.

After full-text screening, the data charting process for reviewing, sorting and documenting information ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ) was done using Covidence, Data Extraction version 2 recommended for scoping reviews. The Data Extraction Template included columns for article title, author, country in which the study was conducted, methods (aim, design, population description, inclusion and exclusion criteria) intervention description, outcome measures, relevant results, follow-up (yes/no), study setting (primary care, worksite/occupational, population-based), study category (lifestyle, physical activity and diet, cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption) and a field for additional notes where needed.

Due to great inconsistencies between studies in the design, populations and outcomes, critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence—an optional step in PRISMA-ScR ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ) guideline list was not done, although concerning research aim it would be useful for assessing the quality of evidence. Although exclusion/inclusion criteria were respected, what was considered as ‘healthy’, ‘middle-’ or ‘high-risk population’ differed significantly in studies, due to differences in definition of terms. Moreover, this decision was made as the AMSTAR tool would not be an adequate choice due to the inclusion of a non-randomized design, and although the AMSTAR 2 tool could potentially be used, this review also included several economic evaluations and follow-ups ( Supplementary Table S1 for more details), or indicators differing highly across studies.

For the synthesis of results ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ), the studies were grouped by the type of the outcome—disease, i.e. CVD or lifestyle/behaviour: physical activity and diet or alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the studies were summarized by setting, risk group and follow-up. None of the systematic reviews with similar research aims were detected during the search.

The selection of sources of evidence ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ) was done as described: 353 references were imported for screening, 72 duplicates were removed, 268 studies were screened against title and abstract during which 198 studies were excluded while 69 studies were assessed for full-text eligibility, when 27 studies were excluded: 12 for wrong intervention, 8 for wrong patient population, 4 for wrong study design 1 was not in English, 1 for wrong indication and 1 for wrong setting, after which 42 studies were included. PRISMA of full screening is found in Figure 1 .

PRISMA of full screening strategy.

Lifestyle interventions

A summary of the study setting, samples and the main outcomes of the 42 studies analysed in this scoping review is presented in Supplementary Table S1 .

In general, the intervention studies analysed here had different main strategies, including: individually tailored programs ( Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Gram et al ., 2012 ; Watson et al ., 2015 ) risk-based, group-based ( Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ) or mixed variants ( Matano et al ., 2007 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ).

Cardiovascular health

We found several different lifestyle interventions targeting CVD risk. There were a set of programs that addressed physical activity in the workplace, which significantly reduced the CVD risk in healthy participants adhering to the program ( Gram et al ., 2012 ; Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Eng et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ). In primary care, an observational study by Journath et al . (2020) , showed an association between healthy participant participation in a CVD prevention programme promoting physical activity and a healthy lifestyle with lower risk of CV events (12%), CV mortality (21%) and all-cause mortality (17%) after 20 years of follow-up.

Similarly, we found interventions in primary care settings that led to changes in physical activity and dietary patterns among all participants—not only those at high risk of CVD morbidity and mortality. These studies described generally decreased CVD risks ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ), CVD-related mortality ( Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Persson et al ., 2015 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ) and all-cause mortality ( Blomstedt et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ).

In a prospective observational study on healthy individuals and those with CVD conducted by Lidin et al . (2018) , the prevalence within the sample at risk of CVD decreased significantly at 12-month follow-up by 15%. In several studies, the changes in health behaviours among the participants showed to be sustained in follow-ups conducted after intervention discontinuation ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2015 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ), while some cardiovascular risk factors, such as salty diets and smoking, showed evidence of significant decrease in a relatively short period ( Nguyen et al ., 2012 ).

Physical activity and diet

In interventions addressing physical activity and diet, it was evident that healthy individuals were more likely to adhere to physical activity interventions ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ) compared to those with a disease. One community-based walking intervention ( Yang and Kim, 2022 ) affected not only the level of physical activity significantly but also a positive overall change towards a health-promoting lifestyle and decreased perceived stress. Similarly, several mental health measures including general mental health ( Oude Hengel et al ., 2014 ), anxiety and depression ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ) and stress ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ) in participants improved during interventions and at follow-up when targeting physical activity and diet.

Additionally, concerning physical activity and diet outcomes, there were a higher feasibility of uptake among participants in health promotion programs compared to those only receiving standard care in primary care ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Zabaleta-Del-Olmo et al ., 2021 ). Anokye et al. (2014) argued that brief advice intervention was more effective—leading to 466 QALYs gained, compared to standard care—implying greater cost-effectiveness.

Healthier lifestyles were also maintained at the follow-up. Reduction in risk factors was found to be sustained in follow-ups at 12 months ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ) or improvements in dietary outcomes over 5 years ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), and sustained lower blood pressure over 6 years ( Eng et al ., 2016 ).

Several interventions promoting physical activity in primary care settings showed significant results in increasing it in all patients, not only in those with chronic disease diagnosis ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Gram et al ., 2012 ; Hardcastle et al ., 2012 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Eng et al ., 2016 ; Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ; Yang and Kim, 2022 ), and similar patterns were also found concerning a change towards a healthier diet ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Kosendiak et al ., 2021 ).

There was disagreement among the above studies in relation to the effectiveness of these interventions among healthy individuals. For example, in the case of implementing a Mediterranean diet, one report argued that a healthy diet should be prioritized, indicating significant hazard ratios (HR) of attaining a Mediterranean diet for all-cause mortality (HR = 0.83), CV mortality (HR = 0.75) and CV events (HR = 0.79) among low-risk individuals ( Bo et al ., 2016 ). Others, however, claimed that there was no evidence of healthier participants being more susceptible to changes in physical activity and diet ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ).

Alcohol consumption

Interventions aimed at decreasing alcohol consumption were divided between those being most effective in high-risk drinkers ( Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Kirkman et al ., 2018 ), and both moderate and low-risk drinkers ( Matano et al ., 2007 ). These interventions were, at large, seen as cost-saving ( Watson et al ., 2015 ) and feasible in primary care ( Neuner-Jehle et al ., 2013 ). Some studies found a sustained decrease in alcohol consumption in those adhering to the interventions, compared to the control groups at 1 ( Pemberton et al ., 2011 ) and 4 months after the intervention ( Kirkman et al ., 2018 ), whereas others failed to find a significant difference between groups.

Intervention setting

The interventions took place in primary care settings, though these were either in community-based or occupational settings. The findings suggested that there were some discrepancies between these different settings.

When it comes to a community-based setting, the difference is made between interventions conducted on a sample of those visiting primary health care or a sample representative for a population of one community—town, or region. Primary care community-based studies tended to either include participants who were primary care visitors with a long follow-up period, or interventions conducted in primary care clinic centres with a shorter follow-up period, most often using experimental design, sampling individuals living in the community that did not necessarily had an intention to seek care ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Hardcastle et al ., 2012 ; Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Grunfeld et al ., 2013 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ; Zabaleta-Del-Olmo et al ., 2021 ).

Overall, the community-based studies were conducted on a sample representative for a population of a smaller community ( Kosendiak et al ., 2021 ; Yang and Kim, 2022 ), region ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Persson et al ., 2015 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ; Journath et al ., 2020 ) or a country ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Neuner-Jehle et al ., 2013 ), often followed by a longer follow-up period. Finally, some studies were evaluations of previous interventions ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Anokye et al ., 2014 ).

Worksite interventions comprised of different occupational roles, often including several of those in the same sample ( Eng et al ., 2016 ), or segmenting based on how physically active the occupation was, e.g. office workers ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ), construction workers ( Gram et al ., 2012 ; Oude Hengel et al ., 2014 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ), sailors ( Hjarnoe and Leppin, 2013 ), farmers ( van Doorn et al ., 2019 ) or simply more active individuals ( Biffi et al ., 2018 ). This had the implication that approaches to intervention differed widely across the studies.

Several interventions were conducted online using a web-based interface, while others were in a professional setting ( Matano et al ., 2007 ; Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Pemberton et al ., 2011 ; Khadjesari et al ., 2014 ) or in some cases community-based ( Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ; Kirkman et al ., 2018 ).

Categorization of risk among participants

Many studies applied specific risk criteria based on the participants’ morbidity risks: including groups of low, middle, high risk ( Persson et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ), low and high risk ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), middle and high risk ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ). While some did not distinguish between risk groups ( Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Journath et al ., 2020 ). In some studies, however, the protocol included mixed populations of those who were healthy and those who had a chronic disease ( Anokye et al ., 2014 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ). Finally, different studies came up with their own meaning of ‘healthy individual’ or ‘healthy population’ based on the health problem they addressed, i.e. having a sedentary lifestyle or high alcohol consumption. Other criteria for being a part of a healthy population were having a high risk for a disease, one or several risks but not the disease itself, or being above a reference value without having a diagnosis.

Ethical implications of healthy controls

Some interventions were screening-result-based, meaning that there was a difference in the treatment of those with good health and those with some complications. In other words, although not excluding healthy individuals, the study protocol included healthy individuals partially receiving full treatment, in the intervention. Studies that excluded those who were healthy from the sample after screening or used them as a control group were excluded from this review. However, some included studies had a healthy control group. Overall, the studies included in this review did not discuss the ethical implications of including healthy populations as controls, or when that was the case, the ethical impact of excluding healthy participants from an intervention.

This scoping review speaks not only of the role and extent of health promotion for healthy individuals in primary care but also of the importance and effects it has on population health. The results showing the association of lifestyle interventions with CVD risk show great implications for future use in primary care, different contexts and feasibility. Physical activity interventions were additionally found to be related to some improvements in mental health.

Interventions aimed at alcohol consumption were found successful in decreasing the amount of drinking sustainably, while the main discussion was based on whether they should be aimed at high-risk only, or at middle- and low-risk drinkers as well, due to mixed results in said groups. The majority of interventions were based in a worksite setting, meaning that this context might be useful for tackling the issue. This approach showed that outcomes might be beneficial even when not reaching the primary goal. Examples of this are findings showing that although not reducing CVD risk, changes in health behaviours were sustained in follow-up ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), less drastic changes decreasing CVD risk in the healthy population ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ) and beneficial effects of physical activity intervention on worker’s health without an overall increase in physical activity ( McEachan et al ., 2011 ). Finally, in most cases, as mentioned, changes in health behaviours were associated with changes in CVD risk.

Some interventions showed that health promotion benefits could be even bigger ( Bo et al ., 2016 ) or that adherence is higher in healthy participants ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ), while other authors disagree ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ). This could be traced to the topic of prioritising primary care for healthy, versus only those at high risk/ already with a disease—secondary care approach according to this review definitions. Designing interventions only for high-risk can make them less successful in healthy participants, as displayed in a study by Blomstedt et al . (2011) where self-rated health decreased in 21% of the good baseline health participants at the 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, from the Rose’s (1981) term of prevention paradox—a great benefit for the population can be almost non-existent for an individual, while if we only focus on high-risk cases, many individuals at low-risk can mean worse health outcomes compared to a small number at high-risk ( Rose, 2001 ). In other words, by focusing only on high-risk population, the downsides are care that can be less efficient, less feasible, more expensive and lead to worse health outcomes. This choice should not be exclusive, as excluding either populations can cause ethical concerns. However, this article gives priority to early prevention, by health promotion for healthy individuals in primary care. Additionally, if it is shown that ‘ Systems based on primary care have better population health, health equity, and health care quality, and lower health care expenditure… ’ ( Stange et al. , 2023 ), different treatment of those who are currently healthy presents an obstacle worth mentioning for achieving health equity in primary care. Furthermore, the role of promoting health to healthy populations and their inclusion in interventions is crucial for improving population health in the future.

Articles focusing on smoking cessation, alcoholism, substance misuse interventions were excluded from this scoping review as they represent addictions and are therefore different from lifestyle interventions. Originally, oral health and dental care interventions were to be included, but there were not enough studies matching the scoping review inclusion requirements.

As expected, the process of finding articles appropriate for inclusion was challenging. Even when the inclusion criteria, at first glance, were satisfied, most studies we came across had excluded healthy participants from the sample after screening for being asymptomatic or not having enough risk factors. They were, however, often a part of a control group, and usually received standard care or no care at all. This approach puts healthy individuals in a vulnerable position, by not addressing their needs to change lifestyles that eventually could contribute to an early death or becoming unwell. Our findings suggest that interventions that include healthy individuals could improve quality of life and health status both at the population and individual levels.

Due to studies using different risk criteria, as well as including many study designs and topics, it was hard to make general conclusions. Nevertheless, as a scoping review, we mapped the area of research by identifying the gaps in the evidence base, and summarizing and disseminating research findings ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ), instead of appraising the quality of evidence in different studies.

Concerning the above, a big research gap was detected in studies focusing on, or even including healthy populations. Furthermore, there is a lack of a coherent or comprehensive methodology in assessing the effects of what is considered health promotion, which calls for a more specific approach and a clear definition of the term. Additionally, the question of intervention staff skills should be raised. Is it necessary that health promotion interventions should be conducted by clinically trained professionals or, innovatively, by staff trained in the topic at hand when possible? Another aspect that is important to problematize is whether it is ethical to exclude healthy individuals in health promotion intervention studies even if they would benefit from participating if included? Furthermore, if healthy individuals are systematically discriminated ( Braveman, 2006 ), receive worse treatment and have the risk of worse health outcomes in the future, it is critical to include them in interventions for achieving better health of populations. This has great practical implications for primary care. Similarly, from a cost-benefit perspective, research should address if excluding healthy individuals might affect the cost-effectiveness of health promotion interventions.

An apparent limitation within this review is the culturally uniform sample of studies. Most studies that we were able to identify were a result of research in the global north, with a strong emphasis on either North America or the EU. Only two studies were from less affluent settings in Southeast Asia ( Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ). Given that the findings suggest that these interventions are cost-effective and do not require substantial investments, these programs could have great potential in low-resource settings if more systematically researched.

This scoping review of 42 studies applying salutogenesis in primary care interventions shows that health promotion targeting healthy individuals is relevant and effective. Most interventions were successful in reducing disease-related risks including CVD, CVD mortality, all-cause mortality, but even more importantly success in behavioural change, sustained at follow-up. Additionally, this review shows that health promotion lifestyle interventions can improve mental health, even when having different aims.

Supplementary material is available at Health Promotion International online.

A.B. performed the literature search, performed most of the data analysis and was the major contributor in writing the Methods and Results sections of the manuscript. M.S. formulated the research questions and scope of the study. He gave considerable input to the data analysis, gave input on all sections of the study—including writing and editing—and was the main author of the Introduction and Discussion. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

We would like to express our gratitude to Maria Björklund, librarian, at the Faculty of Medicine Library, Lund University at CRC in Malmö, who assisted us in the literature search.

A.B.’s contribution was in part funded by a scholarship she received from the Faculty of Medicine and in part by internal funds at the Division of Social Medicine and Global Health, Lund University, the latter also funded M.S.’s contribution.

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.

Álvarez-Bueno , C. , Cavero-Redondo , I. , Martínez-Andrés , M. , Arias-Palencia , N. , Ramos-Blanes , R. and Salcedo-Aguilar , F. ( 2015 ) Effectiveness of multifactorial interventions in primary health care settings for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of systematic reviews . Preventive Medicine , 76 , S68 – S75 .

Google Scholar

Anokye , N. K. , Lord , J. and Fox-Rushby , J. ( 2014 ) Is brief advice in primary care a cost-effective way to promote physical activity ? British Journal of Sports Medicine , 48 , 202 – 206 .

Arksey , H. and O’Malley , L. ( 2005 ) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 , 19 – 32 .

Baumann , S. , Toft , U. , Aadahl , M. , Jørgensen , T. and Pisinger , C. ( 2015 ) The long-term effect of screening and lifestyle counseling on changes in physical activity and diet: the Inter99 Study—a randomized controlled trial . The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 12 , 33 .

Beyer , F. R. , Campbell , F. , Bertholet , N. , Daeppen , J. B. , Saunders , J. B. , Pienaar , E. D. et al. . ( 2019 ) The Cochrane 2018 review on brief interventions in primary care for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption: a distillation for clinicians and policy makers . Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) , 54 , 417 – 427 .

Biffi , A. , Fernando , F. , Adami , P. E. , Messina , M. , Sirico , F. , Di Paolo , F. et al. . ( 2018 ) Ferrari corporate wellness program: results of a pilot analysis and the ‘Drag’ impact in the workplace . High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention , 25 , 261 – 266 .

Blomstedt , Y. , Emmelin , M. and Weinehall , L. ( 2011 ) What about healthy participants? The improvement and deterioration of self-reported health at a 10-year follow-up of the Västerbotten Intervention Programme . Global Health Action , 4 , 5435 .

Blomstedt , Y. , Norberg , M. , Stenlund , H. , Nyström , L. , Lönnberg , G. , Boman , K. et al. . ( 2015 ) Impact of a combined community and primary care prevention strategy on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a cohort analysis based on 1 million person-years of follow-up in Västerbotten County, Sweden, during 1990-2006 . BMJ Open , 5 , e009651 .

Bo , S. , Ponzo , V. , Goitre , I. , Fadda , M. , Pezzana , A. , Beccuti , G. et al. . ( 2016 ) Predictive role of the Mediterranean diet on mortality in individuals at low cardiovascular risk: a 12-year follow-up population-based cohort study . Journal of Translational Medicine , 14 , 91 .

Bonaccio , M. , Di Castelnuovo , A. , Costanzo , S. , De Curtis , A. , Persichillo , M. , Cerletti , C. et al. ; Moli-sani Study Investigators . ( 2019 ) Impact of combined healthy lifestyle factors on survival in an adult general population and in high-risk groups: prospective results from the Moli-sani Study . Journal of Internal Medicine , 286 , 207 – 220 .

Bortolotti , B. , Menchetti , M. , Bellini , F. , Montaguti , M. B. and Berardi , D. ( 2008 ) Psychological interventions for major depression in primary care: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials . General Hospital Psychiatry , 30 , 293 – 302 .

Braveman , P. ( 2006 ) Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement . Annual Review of Public Health , 27 , 167 – 194 .

Buckland , G. , González , C. A. , Agudo , A. , Vilardell , M. , Berenguer , A. , Amiano , P. et al. . ( 2009 ) Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and risk of coronary heart disease in the Spanish EPIC cohort study . American Journal of Epidemiology , 170 , 1518 – 1529 .

Byrne , D. W. , Rolando , L. A. , Aliyu , M. H. , McGown , P. W. , Connor , L. R. , Awalt , B. M. et al. . ( 2016 ) Modifiable healthy lifestyle behaviors: 10-year health outcomes from a health promotion program . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 51 , 1027 – 1037 .

Cantera , C. M. , Puigdomènech , E. , Ballvé , J. L. , Arias , O. L. , Clemente , L. , Casas , R. et al. . ( 2015 ) Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review . BMJ Open , 5 , e008807 .

Cross , R. , Foster , S. , O’Neil , I. , Rowlands , S. , Warwick-Booth , L. and Woodall , J . ( 2020 ) Health Promotion: Global Principles and Practice . CABI , Wallingford .

Google Preview

Dalager , T. , Justesen , J. B. , Murray , M. , Boyle , E. and Sjøgaard , G. ( 2016 ) Implementing intelligent physical exercise training at the workplace: health effects among office workers—a randomized controlled trial . European Journal of Applied Physiology , 116 , 1433 – 1442 .

Doumas , D. M. and Hannah , E. ( 2008 ) Preventing high-risk drinking in youth in the workplace: a web-based normative feedback program . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 34 , 263 – 271 .

Eng , J. Y. , Moy , F. M. and Bulgiba , A. ( 2016 ) Impact of a workplace health promotion program on employees’ blood pressure in a public university . PLoS One , 11 , e0148307 .

Galaviz , K. I. , Weber , M. B. , Straus , A. , Haw , J. S. , Narayan , K. V. and Ali , M. K. ( 2018 ) Global diabetes prevention interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the real-world impact on incidence, weight, and glucose . Diabetes Care , 41 , 1526 – 1534 .

Gibson , I. , Flaherty , G. , Cormican , S. , Jones , J. , Kerins , C. , Walsh , A. M. et al. . ( 2014 ) Translating guidelines to practice: findings from a multidisciplinary preventive cardiology programme in the west of Ireland . European Journal of Preventive Cardiology , 21 , 366 – 376 .

Gram , B. , Holtermann , A. , Søgaard , K. and Sjøgaard , G. ( 2012 ) Effect of individualized worksite exercise training on aerobic capacity and muscle strength among construction workers—a randomized controlled intervention study . Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health , 38 , 467 – 475 .

Green , J. , Cross , R. , Woodall , J. and Tones , K. ( 2019 ) Health Promotion: Planning & Strategies , 4th edition. Sage , London .

Grunfeld , E. , Manca , D. , Moineddin , R. , Thorpe , K. E. , Hoch , J. S. , Campbell-Scherer , D. et al. ; BETTER Trial Investigators . ( 2013 ) Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial . BMC Family Practice , 14 , 175 .

Hardcastle , S. , Blake , N. and Hagger , M. S. ( 2012 ) The effectiveness of a motivational interviewing primary-care based intervention on physical activity and predictors of change in a disadvantaged community . Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 35 , 318 – 333 .

Hjarnoe , L. and Leppin , A. ( 2013 ) Health promotion in the Danish maritime setting: challenges and possibilities for changing lifestyle behavior and health among seafarers . BMC Public Health , 13 , 1 – 12 .

Jeong , S. W. , Kim , S. H. , Kang , S. H. , Kim , H. J. , Yoon , C. H. , Youn , T. J. et al. . ( 2019 ) Mortality reduction with physical activity in patients with and without cardiovascular disease . European Heart Journal , 40 , 3547 – 3555 .

Journath , G. , Hammar , N. , Vikström , M. , Linnersjö , A. , Walldius , G. , Krakau , I. et al. . ( 2020 ) A Swedish primary healthcare prevention programme focusing on promotion of physical activity and a healthy lifestyle reduced cardiovascular events and mortality: 22-year follow-up of 5761 study participants and a reference group . British Journal of Sports Medicine , 54 , 1294 – 1299 .

Khadjesari , Z. , Freemantle , N. , Linke , S. , Hunter , R. and Murray , E. ( 2014 ) Health on the web: randomised controlled trial of online screening and brief alcohol intervention delivered in a workplace setting . PLoS One , 9 , e112553 .

Kirkman , J. J. L. , Leo , B. and Moore , J. C. ( 2018 ) Alcohol consumption reduction among a web-based supportive community using the hello Sunday morning blog platform: observational study . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 20 , e196 .

Kosendiak , A. , Felińczak , A. and Szymańska-Chabowska , A. ( 2021 ) The role of physical training in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in a population of healthy people . The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness , 61 , 844 – 850 .

Lidin , M. , Hellénius , M. L. , Rydell-Karlsson , M. and Ekblom-Bak , E. ( 2018 ) Long-term effects on cardiovascular risk of a structured multidisciplinary lifestyle program in clinical practice . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 18 , 59 .

Lingfors , H. and Persson , L. -G. ( 2019 ) All-cause mortality among young men 24–26 years after a lifestyle health dialogue in a Swedish primary care setting: a longitudinal follow-up register study . BMJ Open , 9 , e022474 .

Lingfors , H. , Persson , L. G. , Lindström , K. , Bengtsson , C. and Lissner , L. ( 2009 ) Effects of a global health and risk assessment tool for prevention of ischemic heart disease in an individual health dialogue compared with a community health strategy only results from the Live for Life health promotion programme . Preventive Medicine , 48 , 20 – 24 .

Matano , R. A. , Koopman , C. , Wanat , S. F. , Winzelberg , A. J. , Whitsell , S. D. , Westrup , D. et al. . ( 2007 ) A pilot study of an interactive web site in the workplace for reducing alcohol consumption . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 32 , 71 – 80 .

Matzer , F. , Nagele , E. , Lerch , N. , Vajda , C. and Fazekas , C. ( 2018 ) Combining walking and relaxation for stress reduction—a randomized cross-over trial in healthy adults . Stress and Health , 34 , 266 – 277 .

McEachan , R. R. C. , Lawton , R. J. , Jackson , C. , Conner , M. , Meads , D. M. and West , R. M. ( 2011 ) Testing a workplace physical activity intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 8 , 29 .

Neuner-Jehle , S. , Schmid , M. and Grüninger , U. ( 2013 ) The ‘Health Coaching’ programme: a new patient-centred and visually supported approach for health behaviour change in primary care . BMC Family Practice , 14 , 100 .

Nguyen , Q. N. , Pham , S. T. , Nguyen , V. L. , Weinehall , L. , Wall , S. , Bonita , R. et al. . ( 2012 ) Effectiveness of community-based comprehensive healthy lifestyle promotion on cardiovascular disease risk factors in a rural Vietnamese population: a quasi-experimental study . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 12 , 56 .

Nutbeam , D. and Muscat , D. M. ( 2021 ) Health promotion glossary 2021 . Health Promotion International , 36 , 1578 – 1598 .

Oude Hengel , K. M. , Bosmans , J. E. , Van Dongen , J. M. , Bongers , P. M. , Van der Beek , A. J. and Blatter , B. M. ( 2014 ) Prevention program at construction worksites aimed at improving health and work ability is cost-saving to the employer: results from an RCT . American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 57 , 56 – 68 .

Pemberton , M. R. , Williams , J. , Herman-Stahl , M. , Calvin , S. L. , Bradshaw , M. R. , Bray , R. M. et al. . ( 2011 ) Evaluation of two web-based alcohol interventions in the U.S. military . Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs , 72 , 480 – 489 .

Persson , L. G. , Lingfors , H. , Nilsson , M. and Mölstad , S. ( 2015 ) The possibility of lifestyle and biological risk markers to predict morbidity and mortality in a cohort of young men after 26 years follow-up . BMJ Open , 5 , e006798 .

Recio-Rodriguez , J. I. , Agudo-Conde , C. , Martin-Cantera , C. , González-Viejo , M. N. , Fernandez-Alonso , M. D. C. , Arietaleanizbeaskoa , M. S. et al. ; EVIDENT Investigators . ( 2016 ) Short-term effectiveness of a mobile phone app for increasing physical activity and adherence to the Mediterranean diet in primary care: a randomized controlled trial (EVIDENT II study) . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 18 , e331 .

Richardson , G. , van Woerden , H. C. , Morgan , L. , Edwards , R. , Harries , M. , Hancock , E. et al. . ( 2008 ) Healthy hearts—a community-based primary prevention programme to reduce coronary heart disease . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 8 , 18 .

Robroek , S. J. , Brouwer , W. , Lindeboom , D. , Oenema , A. and Burdorf , A. ( 2010 ) Demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial correlates of using the website component of a worksite physical activity and healthy nutrition promotion program: a longitudinal study . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 12 , e44 .

Rose , G. ( 1981 ) Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease . British Medical Journal , 282 , 1847 – 1851 .

Rose , G. ( 2001 ) Sick individuals and sick populations . International Journal of Epidemiology , 30 , 427 – 432; discussion 433 .

Stange , K. C. , Miller , W. L. and Etz , R. S. ( 2023 ) The role of primary care in improving population health . The Milbank Quarterly , 101 , 795 – 840 .

Tricco , A. C. , Lillie , E. , Zarin , W. , O’Brien , K. K. , Colquhoun , H. , Levac , D. et al. . ( 2018 ) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation . Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 , 467 – 473 .

van Doorn , D. , Richardson , N. , Osborne , A. and Blake , C. ( 2019 ) The impact of a workplace cardiovascular health screening programme ‘Farmers have hearts’ on health behaviour change among Irish farmers . Work , 63 , 113 – 123 .

Viester , L. , Verhagen , E. A. , Bongers , P. M. and van der Beek , A. J. ( 2015 ) The effect of a health promotion intervention for construction workers on work-related outcomes: results from a randomized controlled trial . International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health , 88 , 789 – 798 .

Watson , H. , Godfrey , C. , McFadyen , A. , McArthur , K. , Stevenson , M. and Holloway , A. ( 2015 ) Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: a pilot randomized controlled trial . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 52 , 39 – 48 .

Wendel-Vos , G. C. , Dutman , A. E. , Verschuren , W. M. , Ronckers , E. T. , Ament , A. , van Assema , P. et al. . ( 2009 ) Lifestyle factors of a five-year community-intervention program: the Hartslag Limburg intervention . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 37 , 50 – 56 .

Yang , S. and Kim , H. ( 2022 ) Effects of a walking exercise-focused health promotion program for middle-aged women in the Korean community . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 , 14947 .

Zabaleta-Del-Olmo , E. , Casajuana-Closas , M. , López-Jiménez , T. , Pombo , H. , Pons-Vigués , M. , Pujol-Ribera , E. et al. . ( 2021 ) Multiple health behaviour change primary care intervention for smoking cessation, physical activity and healthy diet in adults 45 to 75 years old (EIRA study): a hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised trial . BMC Public Health , 21 , 2208 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2245
• Print ISSN 0957-4824
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Open access
• Published: 21 May 2024

Health profession education hackathons: a scoping review of current trends and best practices

• Azadeh Rooholamini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9638-7953 1 &
• Mahla Salajegheh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-3467 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  554 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

156 Accesses

Metrics details

While the concept of hacking in education has gained traction in recent years, there is still much uncertainty surrounding this approach. As such, this scoping review seeks to provide a detailed overview of the existing literature on hacking in health profession education and to explore what we know (and do not know) about this emerging trend.

This was a scoping review study using specific keywords conducted on 8 databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, Education Source, CINAHL) with no time limitation. To find additional relevant studies, we conducted a forward and backward searching strategy by checking the reference lists and citations of the included articles. Studies reporting the concept and application of hacking in education and those articles published in English were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened and the data were extracted by 2 authors.

Twenty-two articles were included. The findings are organized into two main categories, including (a) a Description of the interventions and expected outcomes and (b) Aspects of hacking in health profession education.

Hacking in health profession education refers to a positive application that has not been explored before as discovering creative and innovative solutions to enhance teaching and learning. This includes implementing new instructional methods, fostering collaboration, and critical thinking to utilize unconventional approaches.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Health professions education is a vital component of healthcare systems to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to provide high-quality care to patients [ 1 ]. However, with the advent of innovative technologies and changing global dynamics, there is a growing need to incorporate new educational methods to prepare medical science students for the future [ 2 ].

Although traditional methods can be effective for certain learning objectives and in specific contexts and may create a stable and predictable learning environment, beneficial for introducing foundational concepts, memorization, and repetition, however, they may not fully address the diverse needs and preferences of today’s learners [ 3 ]. Some of their limitations may be limited engagement, passive learning, lack of personalization, and limited creativity and critical thinking [ 4 ].

As Du et al. (2022) revealed the traditional teaching model fails to capture the complex needs of today’s students who require practical and collaborative learning experiences. Students nowadays crave interactive learning methods that enable them to apply theoretical knowledge in real-world situations [ 5 ].

To achieve innovation in health professions education, engaging students and helping them learn, educators should use diverse and new educational methods [ 6 ]. Leary et al. (2022) described how schools of nursing can integrate innovation into their mission and expressed that education officials must think strategically about the knowledge and skills the next generation of students will need to learn, to build an infrastructure that supports innovation in education, research, and practice, and provide meaningful collaboration with other disciplines to solve challenging problems. Such efforts should be structured and built on a deliberate plan and include curricular innovations, and experiential learning in the classroom, as well as in practice and research [ 7 ].

The incorporation of technology in education is another aspect that cannot be ignored. Technology has revolutionized the way we communicate and learn, providing opportunities for students to access information and resources beyond the traditional education setting. According to the advancement of technology in education, hacking in education is an important concept in this field [ 8 ].

Hack has become an increasingly popular term in recent years, with its roots in the world of computer programming and technology [ 9 ]. However, the term “hack” is not limited solely to the realm of computers and technology. It can also refer to a creative approach to problem-solving, a willingness to challenge established norms, and a desire to find new and innovative ways to accomplish tasks [ 10 ]. At its core, hacking involves exploring and manipulating technology systems to gain a deeper understanding of how they work. This process of experimentation and discovery can be applied to many different fields, including education [ 11 ].

In education, the concept of “hack” has become popular as educators seek innovative ways to engage students and improve learning outcomes. As Wizel (2019) described “hack in education” involves applying hacker mentality and techniques, such as using technology creatively and challenging traditional structures, to promote innovation within the educational system [ 12 ]. These hacking techniques encompass various strategies like gamification, hackathons, creating new tools and resources for education, use of multimedia presentations, online forums, and educational apps for project-based learning [ 9 ]. Butt et al. (2020) demonstrated the effectiveness of hack in education in promoting cross-disciplinary learning in medical education [ 13 ]. However, concerns exist about the negative connotations and ethical implications of hacking in education, with some educators hesitant to embrace these techniques in their classrooms [ 7 , 14 ].

However, while the concept of hack in education has gained traction in recent years, there is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding its implementation and efficacy. As such, this scoping review seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on hacking in health profession education (HPE), to explore what we know (and do not know) about this emerging trend. To answer this research question, this study provided a comprehensive review of the literature related to hacking in HPE. Specifically, it explored the various ways in which educators are using hack techniques to improve learning outcomes, increase student engagement, and promote creativity in the classroom.

Methods and materials

This scoping review was performed based on the Arksey and O’Malley Framework [ 15 ] and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to answer some questions about the hacking approach in health professions education [ 16 ].

Search strategies

The research question was “What are the aspects of hacking in education?“. We used the PCC framework which is commonly used in scoping reviews to develop the research question [ 17 ]. In such a way the Population assumed as learners, the Concept supposed as aspects of hacking in education, and the Context is considered to be the health profession education.

A systematic literature search was conducted on June 2023, using the following terms and their combinations: hack OR hacking OR hackathon AND education, professional OR “medical education” OR “medical training” OR “nursing education” OR “dental education” OR “pharmacy education” OR “health professions education” OR “health professional education” OR “higher education” OR “healthcare education” OR “health care education” OR “students, health occupations” OR “medical student” OR “nursing student” OR “dental student” OR “pharmacy student” OR “schools, health occupations” OR “medical school” OR “nursing school” OR “dental school” OR “pharmacy school”) in 8 databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, Education Source, CINAHL) with no time limitation. (A copy of the search strategy is included in Appendix 1 ). To find additional relevant studies, we conducted a forward and backward searching strategy by checking the reference lists and citations of the included articles.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Original research reporting the different aspects of hacking in health professions education and published in English was included. We excluded commentaries, editorials, opinion pieces, perspectives, reviews, calls for change, needs assessments, and other studies in which no real interventions had been employed.

Study identification

After removing the duplicates, each study potentially meeting the inclusion criteria was independently screened by 2 authors (A.R. and M.S.). Then, the full texts of relevant papers were assessed independently by the 2 authors for relevance and inclusion. Disagreements at either step were resolved when needed until a consensus was reached.

Quality assessment of the studies

We used the BEME checklist [ 18 ], consisting of 11 indicators, to assess the quality of studies. Each indicator was rated as “met,” “unmet,” or “unclear.” To be deemed of high quality, articles should meet at least 7 indicators. The quality of the full text of potentially relevant studies was assessed by 2 authors (A.R. and M.S.). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. No study was removed based on the results of the quality assessment.

Data extraction and synthesis

To extract the data from the studies, a data extraction form was designed based on the results of the entered studies. A narrative synthesis was applied as a method for comparing, contrasting, synthesizing, and interpreting the results of the selected papers. All outcomes relevant to the review question were reported. The two authors reviewed and coded each included study using the data extraction form independently.

A total of 645 titles were found, with a further four titles identified through the hand-searching of reference lists of all reviewed articles. After removing the duplicate references, 422 references remained. After title screening, 250 studies were considered for abstract screening, and 172 studies were excluded. After the abstract screening, 73 studies were considered for full-text screening, and 177 studies were excluded due to reasons such as:1. being irrelevant, 2. loss of data, and 3. language limitation. 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The 2020 PRISMA diagram for the included studies is shown in Fig.  1 . The quality was evaluated as “high” in 12 studies, “moderate” in 7 studies, and “low” in 3 studies.

PRISMA flow diagram for included studies

The review findings are organized into two main categories: (a) Description of the interventions and expected outcomes and (b) Aspects of hacking in health profession education.

Description of the interventions and expected outcomes

The description of the studies included the geographical context of the interventions, type, and number of participants, focus of the intervention, evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Table  1 displays a summary of these features.

Geographical context

Of the 22 papers reviewed, 11 studies (45.4%) took place in the United States of America [ 7 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], two studies in Pakistan [ 13 , 29 ], one study performed in international locations [ 30 ], and the remainder being in the United Kingdom [ 31 ], Germany [ 32 ], Finland [ 33 ], Australia [ 34 ], Austria [ 35 ], Thailand [ 36 ], Africa [ 37 ], and Canada [ 38 ].

Type and number of participants

Hacking in HPE interventions covered a wide range and multiple audiences. The majority of interventions targeted students (17 studies, 77.2%) [ 7 , 13 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Their field of education was reported differently including medicine, nursing, engineering, design, business, kinesiology, and computer sciences. Also, they were undergraduates, postgraduates, residents, and post-docs. Ten interventions (45.4%) were designed for physicians [ 13 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 35 ]. Their field of practice was reported diverse including psychology, radiology, surgery, and in some cases not specified. Eight (36.3%) studies focused on staff which included healthcare staff, employees of the university, nurses, care experts, and public health specialists [ 13 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 35 ]. Interestingly, nine of the hacking in HPE interventions (40.9%) welcomed specialists from other fields outside of health sciences and medicine [ 13 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 35 ]. Their field of practice was very diverse including engineers, theologians, artists, entrepreneurs, designers, informaticists, IT professionals, business professionals, industry members, data scientists, and user interface designers. The next group of participants was faculty with 5 studies (22.7%) [ 7 , 23 , 32 , 34 , 36 ]. An intervention (4.5%) targeted the researchers [ 27 ]. The number of participants in the interventions ranged from 12 to 396. Three studies did not specify the number of their participants.

The focus of the intervention

The half of interventions aimed to improve HPE (12 studies, 54.5%) [ 7 , 13 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 38 ], with a secondary emphasis on enhancing clinical or health care [ 19 , 22 , 25 , 29 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Two studies highlighted the improvement in entrepreneurship skills of health professions [ 19 , 20 ]. One study aimed to improve the research skills of health professionals [ 27 ].

Evaluation methodology

Methods to evaluate hacking in HPE interventions included end-of-program questionnaires, pre-and post-test measures to assess attitudinal or cognitive change, self-assessment of post-training performance, project-based assessment through expert judgment and feedback, interviews with participants, and direct observations of behavior.

Hacking in HPE interventions has resulted in positive outcomes for participants. Five studies found high levels of satisfaction for participants with the intervention [ 21 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 ]. Some studies evaluated learning, which included changes in attitudes, knowledge, and skills. In most studies, participants demonstrated a gain in knowledge regarding awareness of education’s strengths and problems, in the desire to improve education by enhancement of awareness for technological possibilities [ 7 , 13 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. Some studies found improving participant familiarity with healthcare innovation [ 19 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 , 36 , 37 ]. Some participants reported a positive change in attitudes towards HPE as a result of their involvement in hacking interventions. They cited a greater awareness of personal strengths and limitations, increased motivation, more confidence, and a notable appreciation of the benefits of professional development [ 20 , 21 , 29 , 34 ]. Some studies also demonstrated behavioral change. In one study, changes were noted in developing a successful proof-of-concept of a radiology training module with elements of gamification, enhancement engagement, and learning outcomes in radiology training [ 28 ]. In a study, participants reported building relationships when working with other members which may be students, faculty, or healthcare professionals [ 7 ]. Five studies found a high impact on participant perceptions and attitudes toward interdisciplinary collaboration [ 22 , 26 , 27 , 36 , 38 ].

Aspects of hacking in health profession education

The special insights of hacking in HPE included the adaptations considered in the interventions, the challenges of interventions, the suggestions for future interventions, and Lessons learned.

Adaptations

The adaptations are considered to improve the efficacy of hacking in HPE interventions. We found that 21 interventions were described as hackathons. Out of this number, some were only hackathons, and some others had benefited from hackathons besides other implications of hacking in education. Therefore, most of the details in this part of the findings are presented with a focus on hackathons. The hackathon concept has been limited to the industry and has not been existing much in education [ 39 , 40 ]. In the context of healthcare, hackathons are events exposing healthcare professionals to innovative methodologies while working with interdisciplinary teams to co-create solutions to the problems they see in their practice [ 19 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 41 , 42 ].

Some hackathons used various technologies for internal and external interactions during the hackathon including Zoom, Gmail, WhatsApp, Google Meet, etc [ 37 ]. . . Almost all hackathons were planned and performed in the following steps including team formation, team working around the challenges, finding innovative solutions collaboratively, presenting the solutions and being evaluating based on some criteria including whether they work, are good ideas with a suitable problem/solution fit, how a well-designed experience and execution, etc. For example, in the hackathon conducted by Pathanasethpong et al. (2017), the judging criteria included innovativeness, feasibility, and value of the projects [ 36 ]. Also, they managed the cultural differences between the participants through strong support of leadership, commitment, flexibility, respect for culture, and willingness to understand each other’s needs [ 36 ].

Despite valuable adaptations, several challenges were reported. The hackathons faced some challenges such as limited internet connectivity, time limitations, limited study sample, power supply, associated costs, lack of diversity among participants, start-up culture, and lack of organizational support [ 13 , 19 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 34 , 37 ]. Some interventions reported the duration of the hackathon was deemed too short to develop comprehensive solutions [ 37 ]. One study identified that encouraging experienced physicians and other healthcare experts to participate in healthcare hackathons is an important challenge [ 26 ].

Suggestions for the future

Future hackathons should provide internet support for participants and judges, invite investors and philanthropists to provide seed funding for winning teams, and enable equal engagement of all participants to foster interdisciplinary collaboration [ 37 ]. Subsequent hackathons have to evaluate the effect of implementation or durability of the new knowledge in practice [ 19 , 28 ]. Wang et al. (2018) performed a hackathon to bring together interdisciplinary teams of students and professionals to collaborate, brainstorm, and build solutions to unmet clinical needs. They suggested that future healthcare hackathon organizers a balanced distribution of participants and mentors, publicize the event to diverse clinical specialties, provide monetary prizes and investor networking opportunities for post-hackathon development, and establish a formal vetting process for submitted needs that incorporates faculty review and well-defined evaluation criteria [ 22 ]. Most interventions had an overreliance on self-assessments to assess their effectiveness. To move forward, we should consider the use of novel assessment methods [ 30 ].

Lessons learned

Based on the findings of hackathons, they have developed efficient solutions to different problems related to public health and medical education. Some of these solutions included developing novel computer algorithms, designing and building model imaging devices, designing more approachable online patient user websites, developing initial prototypes, developing or optimizing data analysis tools, and creating a mobile app to optimize hospital logistics [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 36 ]. Staziaki et al. (2022) performed an intervention to develop a radiology curriculum. Their strategies were creating new tools and resources, gamification, and conducting a hackathon with colleagues from five different countries. They revealed a radiology training module that utilized gamification elements, including experience points and a leaderboard, for annotation of chest radiographs of patients with tuberculosis [ 28 ].

Most hackathons provide an opportunity for medical health professionals to inter-professional and inter-university collaboration and use technology to produce innovative solutions to public health and medical education [ 7 , 23 , 26 , 30 , 37 , 38 ]. For example, one study discussed that hackathons allowed industry experts and mentors to connect with students [ 37 ]. In the study by Mosene et al. (2023), results offer an insight into the possibilities of hackathons as a teaching/learning event for educational development and thus can be used for large-scale-assessments and qualitative interviews for motivational aspects to participate in hackathons, development of social skills and impact on job orientation [ 32 ].

The participants’ willingness to continue working on the projects after the hackathons was also reported in some papers [ 13 , 29 , 33 ]. One study highlights the potential of hackathons to address unmet workforce needs and the preference of female surgeons for small-group discussions and workshops [ 24 ]. Craddock et al. (2016) discussed that their intervention provided a unique opportunity for junior researchers and those from developing economies who have limited opportunities to interact with peers and senior scientists outside their home institution [ 27 ].

Dameff et al. (2019) developed and evaluated a novel high-fidelity simulation-based cybersecurity training program for healthcare providers. They found significant improvements in the knowledge and confidence of participants related to clinical cybersecurity after completing the simulation exercise. They also reported high levels of satisfaction with the training program [ 21 ].

This scoping review provided a detailed overview of the existing literature on hacking in health profession education and explored what we know (and do not know) about this emerging trend. Our results emphasized the increasing pattern of utilizing hacking in HPE for enhancing teaching and learning, problem-solving, and product generation. Our findings revealed that elements of hacking in HPE can include; innovation, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration. Innovation is a critical element of hacking in education that holds different meanings for different disciplines. Those involved in HPE consider innovation to create new tools and resources [ 7 , 28 ], hackathons [ 13 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], gamification [ 28 ], and simulation-based training [ 21 ].

This study by introducing a different perspective or a new application of hacking that has not been explored before allows for a broader understanding of hacking and its potential positive applications in HPE. Although it does mention “hacking,” it does not refer to the malicious or illegal activities often associated with the term [ 43 , 44 ]. The results of this study indicate incorporating hacking into HPE aimed at improving education and enhancing clinical or healthcare had positive outcomes in learning, attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Embracing hacking in HPE revolutionizes traditional teaching methods, promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, leverages cutting-edge technologies, and cultivates a culture of lifelong learning, ultimately enhancing clinical outcomes and the healthcare system as a whole [ 13 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 ].

This study reveals that hackathons are more prominent in the United States of America (USA) education system compared to other countries due to the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship [ 7 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. It is important to note that while hackathons are more prominent in the USA, they are also gaining popularity in other countries [ 13 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. This mindset directly contributes to designing effective interventions and driving innovation across different countries and regions around the world. In comparison to other educational interventions, in hacking within education studies, the geographical context, the focus of the intervention, and outcomes can play a significant role in shaping the educational intervention. The relationship between them can be explained through Socio-cultural theory which emphasizes the influence of social interactions and cultural factors in learning and development [ 45 ]. According to this theory, factors such as cultural values, societal norms, availability of technological resources, access to educational opportunities, and collaboration with local communities all play a role in shaping the outcomes of hacking in education. In light of the findings, creating a positive impact on education through “hacking” as innovation requires adaptations and overcoming challenges. Adaptations could involve modifying traditional teaching methods, incorporating new technologies into the learning process, or adopting new pedagogical approaches, such as project-based learning or blended learning [ 40 ]. Adapting education through hacking means finding innovative solutions to improve teaching methods, student engagement, and overall learning outcomes [ 46 ]. Challenges refer to the obstacles or barriers that educators, leaders, or organizations may face when trying to implement innovative changes in education could be related to resistance to change, lack of resources or funding, bureaucratic hurdles, or simply the complexities of navigating a rapidly changing educational landscape [ 47 ]. Therefore, driving positive change requires leading with creativity, perseverance, and collaboration [ 48 ]. In this way, different leadership and management approaches and models can help to create change. For example, studies show that Kotter’s 8-Step Change theory can be considered a guide for educators to lead innovation in education through hacking [ 49 ].

With a clear definition of innovation, the next is to consider how to systematize and embed a culture of innovation within the educational organization. An important component of this strategy is tying innovation to professional, school, and university priorities. Innovation is a human-centered endeavor and requires key stakeholders’ engagement to identify challenges and opportunities. Our findings emphasized that while meeting with multiple stakeholders is critical, developing other champions of an innovation focus is essential. Consider resources available in developing internal and external advisory members, local entrepreneurs, or leaders in innovation roles. Other strategies can be used to guide the design and development of innovation programs including co-design sessions, focus groups, and the use of external consultants.

Faculty members are the main actors of change and the most effective source of creativity in education. They have a significant role to play in driving change in education by preparing the ground for creativity, adapting to new changes, and stimulating change within the classroom. They can create a positive and innovative learning environment that benefits both students and the entire organization [ 50 , 51 ].

For many faculty members, innovation will be a new area of inquiry. Hence, based on our findings we recommend to the planners and organizers of faculty development programs to design and implement some programs about innovation in the teaching and learning process considering these three key elements: building knowledge, acquiring skills in applying rigorous innovation methodologies to identifying and solving problems, and generating opportunities to participate in innovation activities can way to develop an interest in innovation and elevate it as a school goal and priority [ 51 , 52 ].

Overall, these findings demonstrate that the hackathon effectively met its objectives in the case of HPE by promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, building relationships, facilitating learning, developing innovation, knowledge acquisition, practical problem-solving skills, cross-disciplinary tools for teaching and learning, and inquiry-based learning. In addition, findings reveal the positive outcomes of hackathons in HPE including increasing confidence levels as innovators, enhancing awareness of technological possibilities for future healthcare givers, improved familiarity with healthcare innovation and teaching entrepreneurship, improving engagement, and learning outcomes in training, high participant satisfaction, and increased motivation with the program. Also, Hackathon in HPE emphasizes the role of multidisciplinary teams and technology in solving medical education problems and encourages disciplinary collaborations to improve data collection and analysis [ 7 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. A potential gap of knowledge in this study is the lack of research on the long-term impact and sustainability of hacking in HPE. While the study highlights the positive outcomes of incorporating hacking into education, it does not delve into the long-term effects or address the potential challenges in maintaining and sustaining these innovative practices. Additionally, there is limited mention of the assessment methods used to measure the effectiveness of hacking in education, which could be an area for further investigation.

Some limitations of this study are including, this comprehensive study includes a straightforward research question, a predefined search strategy, and inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies that summarize all relevant studies, allowing for a detailed understanding of the available evidence. This had some limitations when it came to collecting eligible articles. Since this review extracted only published research, there are educational interventions that are reported at conferences but have not yet been published in the literature. The moderate quality of full-text studies is indeed a limitation of this study. Future research should consider including higher-quality full-text studies to enhance the robustness of the findings.

Although we searched for articles using general keywords, these were limited to hackathon keywords. Further research is needed to conduct hackathons in HPE to drive sustained innovation and crowd-source solutions. First, research should investigate how to enhance faculty and student engagement and retention to foster hackathons in HPE. Second, a multidisciplinary study is crucial to strike a balance between embracing innovation and evaluating its impact to ensure its successful integration into the education system. Third, future research could focus on exploring the long-term impact, sustainability, and assessment methods of incorporating hackathons in HPE.

Hacking in the health profession educational context refers to the positive applications in teaching and learning that have not been explored before. Embracing hacking requires adaptations, overcoming challenges, and driving change through creativity, perseverance, and collaboration. The goal of hacking in health profession education is to create a more dynamic, adaptable, and effective educational system that meets the needs of all learners and prepares them for success in the rapidly evolving 21st-century economy.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Van Schalkwyk SC, Hafler J, Brewer TF, Maley MA, Margolis C, McNamee L, et al. Transformative learning as pedagogy for the health professions: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019;53(6):547–58.

Article   Google Scholar  

Green M, Wayne DB, Neilson EG. Medical education 2020—charting a path forward. JAMA. 2019;322(10):934–5.

Koolivand H, Shooreshi MM, Safari-Faramani R, Borji M, Mansoory MS, Moradpoor H, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of virtual reality-based education and conventional teaching methods in dental education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):8.

Saini S, Kamath G, Mathew M, DSouza D. Case based interprofessional learning versus traditional teaching methods for medical, nursing, and physiotherapy students. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2024;22(1):27.

Google Scholar  

Du L, Zhao L, Xu T, Wang Y, Zu W, Huang X et al. Blended learning vs traditional teaching: the potential of a novel teaching strategy in nursing education-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022:103354.

Gyimah N. Assessing technological innovation on education in the world of coronavirus (COVID-19). Annal Immunol Immunotherapy. 2022;4(1):000158.

Leary M, Villarruel AM, Richmond TS. Creating an innovation infrastructure in academic nursing. J Prof Nurs. 2022;38:83–8.

Záhorec J, Nagyová A, Hašková A. Teachers’ Attitudes to Incorporation Digital Means in Teaching Process in Relation to the Subjects they Teach. Int J Eng Pedagogy. 2019;9(4).

Barpi F, Dalmazzo D, De Blasio A, Vinci F. Hacking higher education: rethinking the EduHack course. Educ Sci. 2021;11(2):40.

Kim HJ, Jang HY. Sustainable technology integration in underserved area schools: the impact of perceived student change on teacher continuance intention. Sustainability. 2020;12(12):4802.

Iglesias-Sánchez PP, Jambrino-Maldonado C, de las Heras-Pedrosa C. Training entrepreneurial competences with open innovation paradigm in higher education. Sustainability. 2019;11(17):4689.

Wizel M, editor. Teachers as Hackers: Implications for 21st Century Teacher Education. 7th Teaching & Education Conference; 2019; London: Lesley University.

Butt WA, Shahood Q, Farooqi WH, Ghias K, Sabzwari S, Mian A. Healthcare hackathons: fostering medical education through innovation in a developing country: a case study from Pakistan. BMJ Innovations. 2020;7(1):1–6.

Maimon D, Louderback ER. Cyber-dependent crimes: an interdisciplinary review. Annual Rev Criminol. 2019;2:191–216.

Arksey H, O’malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

Pollock D, Peters MD, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2023;21(3):520–32.

Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, Khan KS, Zamora J, Malick S, et al. The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a best evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide 11 Med Teacher. 2009;31(4):282–98.

Preiksaitis C, Dayton JR, Kabeer R, Bunney G, Boukhman M. Teaching principles of Medical Innovation and Entrepreneurship through hackathons: Case Study and qualitative analysis. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9(1):e43916.

Kagan O, Sciasci NG, Koszalinski RS, Kagan DH, Leary M, Nadel H. Nurses’ confidence in starting a new venture, startup or project in the context of nurse-led hackathons: results of prehackathon survey. Nurs Outlook. 2023;71(3):101961.

Dameff CJ, Selzer JA, Fisher J, Killeen JP, Tully JL. Clinical cybersecurity training through novel high-fidelity simulations. J Emerg Med. 2019;56(2):233–8.

Wang JK, Roy SK, Barry M, Chang RT, Bhatt AS. Institutionalizing healthcare hackathons to promote diversity in collaboration in medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):1–9.

Saffari SS, Frederick Lambert R, Dang L, Pagni S, Dragan IF. Integrating student feedback during Dental Curriculum Hack-A-thon. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:1–6.

Ruzgar NM, Ahuja C, Kristin EY, Sallam A, Rosenthal R, Killelea B. How we do it: creation of a workforce development-focused track at a surgical hackathon. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(5):1028–32.

Cooper K, Siefert A, Weinreb J. Skills beyond the Reading room: training in innovation and collaboration at a radiology hackathon. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3):466–8.

Silver JK, Binder DS, Zubcevik N, Zafonte RD. Healthcare hackathons provide educational and innovation opportunities: a case study and best practice recommendations. J Med Syst. 2016;40:1–7.

Cameron Craddock R, Margulies S, Bellec D, Nolan Nichols P, Alcauter B, Barrios SA et al. F,. Brainhack: a collaborative workshop for the open neuroscience community. GigaScience. 2016;5(1):s13742-016-0121-x.

Staziaki PV, Santinha JA, Coelho MO, Angulo D, Hussain M, Folio LR. Gamification in radiology training module developed during the society for imaging informatics in medicine annual meeting hackathon. J Digit Imaging. 2022;35(3):714–22.

Butt WA, Shariff A, Khan S, Mian AI. Global surgery hackathons: a Case Study from Pakistan. Surg Innov. 2021;28(4):496–501.

Wang JK, Pamnani RD, Capasso R, Chang RT. An extended hackathon model for collaborative education in medical innovation. J Med Syst. 2018;42:1–8.

Kienzler H, Fontanesi C. Learning through inquiry: a global health hackathon. Teach High Educ. 2017;22(2):129–42.

Mosene K, Kleinesper C, Prokop G, Caroli F, Teufel D, Berberat PO et al. OPEN Hackathon at the TUM School of Medicine, Germany. GMS J Med Educ. 2023;40(2).

Kolog EA, Sutinen E, Nygren E. Hackathon for learning digital theology in computer science. Int J Mod Educ Comput Sci. 2016;8(6):1.

Brand G, Collins J, Bedi G, Bonnamy J, Barbour L, Ilangakoon C, et al. I teach it because it is the biggest threat to health: integrating sustainable healthcare into health professions education. Med Teach. 2021;43(3):325–33.

Ströckl DE, Perchtaler M, Oberzaucher J, editors. Interdisciplinary Hackathons-A method to embed digitization in Healthcare Education. dHealth; 2022.

Pathanasethpong A, Soomlek C, Morley K, Morley M, Polpinit P, Dagan A, et al. Tackling regional public health issues using mobile health technology: event report of an mHealth hackathon in Thailand. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2017;5(10):e8259.

Babatunde AO, Brimmo FO, Arama UO, Onyinyechi MG, Josephat KA, Osiene AO. A Public Health Hackathon for Medical Students in Africa: Process, Outcome and Recommendations. medRxiv. 2023:2023.01. 28.23284802.

Muñoz-Leija MA, Paul BR, Shi G, Dixit I, Quiroga-Garza A, Elizondo-Omaña RE, et al. THE HIVE: a multidisciplinary approach to medical education. Eur J Anat. 2021;25(1):101–6.

Oyetade KE, Zuva T, Harmse A. Factors influencing Hackathon Adoption for Learning Information Technology (IT) programming modules. TEM J. 2022;11(3).

Horton PA, Jordan SS, Weiner S, Lande M, editors. Project-based learning among engineering students during short-form hackathon events. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; 2018.

Walker A, Ko N. Bringing medicine to the digital age via hackathons and beyond. J Med Syst. 2016;40:1–3.

Ahmed R, Mian AI. A case for global surgery in Pakistan: implementation through Multi-disciplinary Engagement. JPMA J Pakistan Med Association. 2019;69(1):S98–100.

Clarke R, Youngstein T. Cyberattack on Britain’s National Health Service—a wake-up call for modern medicine. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):409–11.

Grimes S, Wirth A. Holding the line: events that shaped healthcare cybersecurity. Biomedical Instrum Technol. 2017;51(s6):30–2.

Mahn H, John-Steiner V. Vygotsky and sociocultural approaches to teaching and learning. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. 2012;7.

Wizel M. Preparing educational hackers. Contemporary pedagogies in teacher education and development. IntechOpen; 2018.

Ávila LV, Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Macgregor CJ, Molthan-Hill P, Özuyar PG, et al. Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:1268–78.

Matthew CT, Sternberg RJ. Leading innovation through collaboration. Innovation through collaboration. Volume 12. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2006. pp. 27–52.

Kotter J. The 8-step process for leading change. Kotter Int. 2012.

Potter EM. Perceptions of Creativity among Faculty in Higher Education. 2013.

Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide 8. Med Teach. 2006;28(6):497–526.

Steinert Y. Perspectives on faculty development: aiming for 6/6 by 2020. Perspect Med Educ. 2012;1:31–42.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was conducted with the financial support of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Technology of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (project number: 402000210).The role of the funding body was to provide support for data collection and analysis.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Azadeh Rooholamini & Mahla Salajegheh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AR and MS formulated the research idea, extracted data, and performed the analysis of the data, wrote the manuscript, and edited the draft of the paper. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahla Salajegheh .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate.

The Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences approved the study (No: IR.KMU.REC.1402.251).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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.

Rooholamini, A., Salajegheh, M. Health profession education hackathons: a scoping review of current trends and best practices. BMC Med Educ 24 , 554 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05519-7

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2023

Accepted : 06 May 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05519-7

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

• Medical education
• Health profession education

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

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