literature review research method

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. 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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize 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 thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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  

669 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

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

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

Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• > Literature Review

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
• 1 Promises and Pitfalls of Theory
• 2 Research Ethics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• 3 Getting Good Ideas and Making the Most of Them
• 4 Literature Review
• 5 Choosing a Research Design
• 6 Building the Study
• 7 Analyzing Data
• 8 Writing the Paper
• Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
• Part III Data Collection
• Part IV Statistical Approaches
• Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career

4 - Literature Review

from Part I - From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that establishes familiarity with and an understanding of current research in a particular field. It includes a critical analysis of the relationship among different works, seeking a synthesis and an explanation of gaps, while relating findings to the project at hand. It also serves as a foundational aspect of a well-grounded thesis or dissertation, reveals gaps in a specific field, and establishes credibility and need for those applying for a grant. The enormous amount of textual information necessitates the development of tools to help researchers effectively and efficiently process huge amounts of data and quickly search, classify, and assess their relevance. This chapter presents an assessable guide to writing a comprehensive review of literature. It begins with a discussion of the purpose of the literature review and then presents steps to conduct an organized, relevant review.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Literature Review
• By Rachel Adams Goertel
• Edited by Austin Lee Nichols , Central European University, Vienna , John Edlund , Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Online publication: 25 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

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.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded 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 to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

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: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Persuasive Arguments
• Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

• Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
• Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
• Read: read the articles or other sources of information
• Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
• Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
• Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude 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 an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

• How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
• Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
• Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Organizing Your Paper

Before you begin writing your paper, you will need to decide upon a way to organize your information. You can organize your paper using a number of different strategies, such as the following:

• Topics and subtopics : Discussing your sources in relation to different topics and subtopics; probably the most common approach
• Chronologically : Discussing your sources from oldest to newest in order to show trends or changes in the approach to a topic over time
• Methods : Discussing your sources by different methods that are used to approach the topic

When literature reviews are incorporated into a research paper, they are often structured using the  funnel method , which begins with a broad overview of a topic and then narrows down to more specific themes before focusing in on the specific research question that the paper will address.

A literature review paper often follows this basic organization:

Introduction

• Describes the importance of the topic
• Defines key terms
• Describes the goals of the review
• Provides an overview of the literature to be discussed (e.g., methods, trends, etc.) (optional)
• Describes parameters of the review and particular search methods used (optional)
• Discusses findings of sources, as well as strengths, weaknesses, similarities, differences, contradictions, and gaps
• Divides content into sections (for longer reviews), uses headings and subheadings to indicate section divisions, and provides brief summaries at the end of each section
• Summarizes what is known about the topic
• Discusses implications for practice
• Discusses areas for further research

Synthesizing Sources

A literature review paper not only describes and evaluates the scholarly research literature related to a particular topic, but it also synthesizes that information. Synthesis  is the process of weaving together information from sources to arrive at new analyses and insights.

To help you prepare to synthesize sources in your paper, you can take the topic matrix that you prepared as you were organizing your sources, and flesh it out into a  synthesis matrix  that contains detailed notes from each source as they relate to different topics and subtopics of your literature review. Once you've completed your synthesis matrix, you can more easily identify ways that sources relate to each other in terms of their similarities and differences, methodological strengths and weakness, and contradictions and gaps. The video below shows how to create a synthesis matrix.

Video:  Synthesis Matrix Tutorial  by  Andrew Davis .

Writing Your Paper

A literature review paper should flow logically from one topic to the next. As you write your paper, consider these tips:

• Write in a formal voice and with an impartial tone.
• Define critical terms and describe key theories.
• Use topic sentences to clearly indicate what each paragraph is about.
• Use transitions to make links between sections.
• Introduce acronyms upon first using them.
• Call attention to seminal (i.e., highly influential; groundbreaking) studies.
• Clearly distinguish between your ideas and those of the authors you cite.
• Cite multiple sources for a single idea, if appropriate.
• Create a list of references that follows appropriate style guidelines.
• Give your paper a title that conveys what the literature review is about.
• Once you have written your paper, carefully proofread it for errors.
• << Previous: Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Next: Help and Resources >>

The Guide to Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• The Purpose of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Organize a Literature Review?
• Software for Literature Reviews
• Using Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews
• How to Conduct a Literature Review?
• Common Mistakes and Pitfalls in a Literature Review
• Methods for Literature Reviews
• What is a Systematic Literature Review?
• What is a Narrative Literature Review?
• What is a Descriptive Literature Review?
• What is a Scoping Literature Review?
• What is a Realist Literature Review?
• What is a Critical Literature Review?
• Meta Analysis vs. Literature Review
• What is an Umbrella Literature Review?
• Differences Between Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Literature Review vs. Theoretical Framework
• How to Write a Literature Review?
• How to Structure a Literature Review?
• How to Make a Cover Page for a Literature Review?
• Importance of a literature review abstract

How to write a literature review abstract?

Key reminders when writing a literature review abstract.

• How to Write a Literature Review Introduction?
• How to Write the Body of a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion?
• How to Make a Literature Review Bibliography?
• How to Format a Literature Review?
• How Long Should a Literature Review Be?
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to Present a Literature Review?
• How to Publish a Literature Review?

How to Write a Literature Review Abstract?

A well-crafted abstract is the initial point of contact between your research and its potential audience. It is crucial to present your work in the best possible light. A literature review abstract is a concise summary of the key points and findings of a literature review that is published as a full paper. It serves as a snapshot of the review, providing readers with a quick overview of the research topic, objectives, main findings, and implications.

Unlike the full literature review, the abstract does not delve into detailed analysis or discussion but highlights the most critical aspects. An abstract helps readers decide whether the full article is relevant to their interests and needs by encapsulating the essence of the literature review. A literature review abstract offers a condensed version of the study that helps researchers identify the review's relevance to their work. This is important in academic settings, where individuals often revise numerous journal articles and papers to find pertinent information. A clear and informative abstract saves time and effort.

Here are the steps we recommend when writing abstracts for literature reviews:

Introduce the research topic : Begin by stating the subject of your literature review. Explain its significance and relevance in your field. Provide context that highlights the broader impact and necessity of your review. For example, "This literature review focuses on the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems and its significance in developing sustainable management strategies."

State objectives : Clearly outline the literature review's main objectives or purposes. Specify what you aim to achieve, such as identifying gaps in the literature, synthesizing existing research, or proposing new directions for future studies. For instance, "This review aims to identify key areas where climate change impacts coastal ecosystems and to propose future research directions."

Summarize key findings : Provide a concise summary of the data collection methods and results. Include primary findings, trends, or insights from your review. Highlight the most important conclusions and previous research contributions, and explain their implications for the field. An example might be, "The review reveals significant changes in species composition due to rising sea temperatures, suggesting the need for adaptive management strategies."

Use clear and concise language : Ensure your abstract covers the main points of your literature review, using straightforward language and avoiding complex terminology or jargon. Write in the third person to maintain objectivity, and structure your abstract logically to improve readability. For example, avoid first-person phrases like "I found that..." and use "The review indicates that..." Keep your abstract concise, typically between 150-250 words. Make it comprehensive, offering a clear view of the review’s scope and significance without overwhelming readers with too much detail. Conciseness is key in abstract writing, as it allows readers to quickly grasp the essence of your review without wading through unnecessary information.

Optimize search engines : Incorporate relevant search terms and phrases to enhance discoverability through search engines. Choose a descriptive title that includes key phrases from your literature review. This makes your work more likely to appear with the search results and makes it more accessible to potential readers. With the example above, a researcher may use keywords like "literature review," "climate change," and "coastal ecosystems" to attract the right audience.

Quality literature reviews start with ATLAS.ti

Make your literature reviews stronger, ATLAS.ti is there for you at every step. See how with a free trial.

When writing your abstract, double-check it covers the critical points of your literature review. This includes the research topic, significance, objectives, data extraction methods, main findings, and implications for additional research. Avoiding ambiguity and complex terminology makes your abstract accessible to a wider audience, including those who may not be specialists in your field. Here are some important tips to keep in mind when writing abstracts:

Avoid using complex terminology or scientific jargon that might confuse readers. A good abstract should be accessible to a broad range of potential readers, including researchers and policymakers.

Avoid using quotations in your abstract; paraphrase the information to maintain clarity and conciseness. Write in the third person to ensure your abstract remains professional and focused.

Choose a descriptive title for your article mentioning key phrases from your literature review. Optimize the title for search engines to enhance its visibility and shareability. A well-crafted title can significantly impact the reach and impact of your research. Incorporating keywords into your title improves search engine optimization (SEO) and attracts readers' attention, making your work more discoverable.

Focus on the most important information, avoiding unnecessary details. Ensure a logical flow of ideas with clear and active language. Each sentence should contribute to explaining your literature review's key points. A well-structured abstract guides readers through your review logically, making it easier to follow and understand. It also leads readers through your review smoothly.

Make sure that your abstract accurately reflects the content of your literature review. Use relevant keywords and phrases to ensure your abstract remains focused and pertinent to your research. Accuracy is vital to maintain the interest of your readers and to guide those who read the full review to find the information they expect.

Proofread your abstract carefully to check for grammatical and typographical errors. Ensure that it is well-structured, polished, and error-free.

A well-written literature review abstract is vital for the effective dissemination of your research. It serves as the first impression of your work which engages readers and provides a succinct overview of your study's significance and findings. You will create an abstract that attracts readers and reaches a broader audience by introducing your topic, stating your objectives, summarizing key findings, and using clear language. Writing clear abstracts enhances the visibility, accessibility, and impact of your literature reviews.

Develop powerful literature reviews with ATLAS.ti

Use our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your literature review.

• Writing Center

Beginner’s Guide to Research

Click here to download a .pdf copy of our Beginner’s Guide to Research !

Last updated : July 18, 2024

Consider keeping a printed copy to have when writing and revising your resume!  If you have any additional questions, make an appointment or email us at [email protected] !

Most professors will require the use of academic (AKA peer-reviewed) sources for student writing. This is because these sources, written for academic audiences of specific fields, are helpful for developing your argument on many topics of interest in the academic realm, from history to biology. While popular sources like news articles also often discuss topics of interest within academic fields, peer-reviewed sources offer a depth of research and expertise that you cannot find in popular sources. Therefore, knowing how to (1) identify popular vs. academic sources, (2) differentiate between primary and secondary sources, and (3) find academic sources is a vital step in writing research. Below are definitions of the two ways scholars categorize types of sources based on when they were created (i.e. time and place) and how (i.e. methodology):

Popular vs. academic sources:

• Popular sources are publicly accessible periodicals–newspapers, magazines, and blogs–such as The Washington Post or The New Yorker . These sources are most often written for non-academic audiences, but can be helpful for finding general information and a variety of opinions on your topic.
• Academic sources , known also as peer reviewed or scholarly articles, are those that have undergone peer review before being published. Typically, these articles are written for other scholars in the field and are published in academic journals, like Feminist Studies or The American Journal of Psychology . Literature reviews, research projects, case studies, and notes from the field are common examples.

Primary vs. secondary sources:

• Primary sources are articles written by people directly involved in what they were writing about, including: News reports and photographs, diaries and novels, films and videos, speeches and autobiographies, as well as original research and statistics.
• Secondary sources , on the other hand, are second hand accounts written about a topic based on primary sources. Whether a journal article or other academic publication is considered a secondary source depends on how you use it.

How to Find Academic Sources

Finding appropriate academic sources from the hundreds of different journal publications can be daunting. Therefore, it is important to find databases –digital collections of articles–relevant to your topic to narrow your search. Albertson’s Library has access to several different databases, which can be located by clicking the “Articles and Databases” tab on the website’s homepage, and navigating to “Databases A-Z” to refine your search. Popular databases include: Academic Search Premier and Proquest Central (non-specific databases which include a wide variety of articles), JSTOR (humanities and social sciences, from literature to history), Web of Science (formal sciences and natural sciences such as biology and chemistry), and Google Scholar (a web search engine that searches scholarly literature and academic sources). If you are unable to access articles from other databases, make sure you’re signed in to Alberton’s Library through Boise State!

Performing a Database Search

Databases include many different types of sources besides academic journals, however, including book reviews and other periodicals. Using the search bar , you can limit search results to those containing specific keywords or phrases like “writing center” or “transfer theory.” Utilizing keywords in your search–names of key concepts, authors, or ideas–rather than questions is the most effective way to find articles in databases. When searching for a specific work by title, placing the title in quotation marks will ensure your search includes only results in that specific word order. In the example below, search terms including the author (“Virginia Woolf”) and subject (“feminism”) are entered into the popular database EBSCOhost:

Refining Your Search Results

Many databases have a bar on the left of the screen where you can further refine your results. For example, if you are only interested in finding complete scholarly articles, or peer-reviewed ones, you can toggle these different options to further limit your search. These options are located under the “Refine Results” bar in EBSCOhost, divided into different sections, with a display of currently selected search filters and filter options to refine your search based on your specific needs, as seen in the figure below:

Search results can also be limited by subject : If you search “Romeo and Juliet” on Academic Search Premier to find literary analysis articles for your English class, you’ll find a lot of other sources that include this search term, such as ones about theater production or ballets based on Shakespeare’s play. However, if you’re writing a literary paper on the text of the play itself, you might limit your search results to “fiction” to see only articles that discuss the play within the field of literature. Alternatively, for a theater class discussing the play, you might limit your search results to “drama.”

The Writing Center

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 33, Issue 5
• Equitable and accessible informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability: a systematic literature review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-7329 Manjekah Dunn 1 , 2 ,
• Iva Strnadová 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Jackie Leach Scully 4 ,
• Jennifer Hansen 3 ,
• Julie Loblinzk 3 , 5 ,
• Skie Sarfaraz 5 ,
• Chloe Molnar 1 ,
• Elizabeth Emma Palmer 1 , 2
• 1 Faculty of Medicine & Health , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 2 The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 3 School of Education , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 4 Disability Innovation Institute , University of New South Wales , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 5 Self Advocacy Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• Correspondence to Dr Manjekah Dunn, Paediatrics & Child Health, University of New South Wales Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; manjekah.dunn{at}unsw.edu.au

Objective To identify factors acting as barriers or enablers to the process of healthcare consent for people with intellectual disability and to understand how to make this process equitable and accessible.

Data sources Databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Additional articles were obtained from an ancestral search and hand-searching three journals.

Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed original research about the consent process for healthcare interventions, published after 1990, involving adult participants with intellectual disability.

Synthesis of results Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify factors affecting informed consent. The findings were reviewed by co-researchers with intellectual disability to ensure they reflected lived experiences, and an easy read summary was created.

Results Twenty-three studies were included (1999 to 2020), with a mix of qualitative (n=14), quantitative (n=6) and mixed-methods (n=3) studies. Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 people (median 21) and included people with intellectual disability, health professionals, carers and support people, and others working with people with intellectual disability. Six themes were identified: (1) health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education, (2) inadequate accessible health information, (3) involvement of support people, (4) systemic constraints, (5) person-centred informed consent and (6) effective communication between health professionals and patients. Themes were barriers (themes 1, 2 and 4), enablers (themes 5 and 6) or both (theme 3).

Conclusions Multiple reasons contribute to poor consent practices for people with intellectual disability in current health systems. Recommendations include addressing health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education in informed consent with clinician training, the co-production of accessible information resources and further inclusive research into informed consent for people with intellectual disability.

PROSPERO registration CRD42021290548.

• Decision making
• Healthcare quality improvement
• Patient-centred care
• Quality improvement
• Standards of care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Additional data and materials such as data collection forms, data extraction and analysis templates and QualSyst assessment data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016113

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What is already known on this topic

People with intellectual disability are frequently excluded from decision-making processes and not provided equal opportunity for informed consent, despite protections outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

People with intellectual disability have the capacity and desire to make informed medical decisions, which can improve their well-being, health satisfaction and health outcomes.

What this review study adds

Health professionals lack adequate training in valid informed consent and making reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disability, and continue to perpetuate assumptions of incapacity.

Health information provided to people with intellectual disability is often inaccessible and insufficient for them to make informed decisions about healthcare.

The role of support people, systemic constraints, a person-centred approach and ineffective healthcare communication also affect informed consent.

How this review might affect research, practice or policy

Health professionals need additional training on how to provide a valid informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, specifically in using accessible health information, making reasonable adjustments (e.g., longer/multiple appointments, options of a support person attending or not, using plain English), involving the individual in discussions, and communicating effectively with them.

Inclusive research is needed to hear the voices and opinions of people with intellectual disability about healthcare decision-making and about informed consent practices in specific healthcare settings.

Introduction

Approximately 1% of the world’s population have intellectual disability. 1 Intellectual disability is medically defined as a group of neurodevelopmental conditions beginning in childhood, with below average cognitive functioning and adaptive behaviour, including limitations in conceptual, social and practical skills. 2 People with intellectual disability prefer an alternative strength-based definition, reflected in the comment by Robert Strike OAM (Order of Australia Medal): ‘We can learn if the way of teaching matches how the person learns’, 3 reinforcing the importance of providing information tailored to the needs of a person with intellectual disability. A diagnosis of intellectual disability is associated with significant disparities in health outcomes. 4–7 Person-centred decision-making and better communication have been shown to improve patient satisfaction, 8 9 the physician–patient relationship 10 and overall health outcomes 11 for the wider population. Ensuring people with intellectual disability experience informed decision-making and accessible healthcare can help address the ongoing health disparities and facilitate equal access to healthcare.

Bodily autonomy is an individual’s power and agency to make decisions about their own body. 12 Informed consent for healthcare enables a person to practice bodily autonomy and is protected, for example, by the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (Australia), 13 Mental Capacity Act (UK) 14 and the Joint Commission Standards (USA). 15 In this article, we define informed consent according to three requirements: (1) the person is provided with information they understand, (2) the decision is free of coercion and (3) the person must have capacity. 16 For informed consent to be valid, this process must be suited to the individual’s needs so that they can understand and communicate effectively. Capacity is the ability to give informed consent for a medical intervention, 17 18 and the Mental Capacity Act outlines that ‘a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity’ and that incapacity can only be established if ‘all practicable steps’ to support capacity have been attempted without success. 14 These assumptions of capacity are also decision-specific, meaning an individual’s ability to consent can change depending on the situation, the choice itself and other factors. 17

Systemic issues with healthcare delivery systems have resulted in access barriers for people with intellectual disability, 19 despite the disability discrimination legislation in many countries who are signatories to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 20 Patients with intellectual disability are not provided the reasonable adjustments that would enable them to give informed consent for medical procedures or interventions, 21 22 despite evidence that many people with intellectual disability have both the capacity and the desire to make their own healthcare decisions. 21 23

To support people with intellectual disability to make independent health decisions, an equitable and accessible informed consent process is needed. 24 However, current health systems have consistently failed to provide this. 21 25 To address this gap, we must first understand the factors that contribute to inequitable and inaccessible consent. To the best of our knowledge, the only current review of informed consent for people with intellectual disability is an integrative review by Goldsmith et al . 26 Many of the included articles focused on assessment of capacity 27–29 and research consent. 30–32 The review’s conclusion supported the functional approach to assess capacity, with minimal focus on how the informed consent processes can be improved. More recently, there has been a move towards ensuring that the consent process is accessible for all individuals, including elderly patients 33 and people with aphasia. 34 However, there remains a paucity of literature about the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, with no systematic reviews summarising the factors influencing the healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability.

To identify barriers to and enablers of the informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability, and to understand how this can be made equitable and accessible.

A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) systematic literature review protocol. 35 The PRISMA 2020 checklist 36 and ENhancing Transparency in REporting the synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) reporting guidelines were also followed. 37 The full study protocol is included in online supplemental appendix 1 .

Supplemental material

No patients or members of the public were involved in this research for this manuscript.

Search strategy

A search strategy was developed to identify articles about intellectual disability, consent and healthcare interventions, described in online supplemental appendix 2 . Multiple databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 to January 2022 (Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL). These databases include healthcare and psychology databases that best capture relevant literature on this topic, including medical, nursing, social sciences and bioethical literature. The search was limited to studies published from 1990 as understandings of consent have changed since then. 38 39 This yielded 4853 unique papers which were imported into Covidence, a specialised programme for conducting systematic reviews. 40

Study selection

Citation screening by abstract and titles was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Included articles had to:

Examine the informed consent process for a healthcare intervention for people with intellectual disability.

Have collected more than 50% of its data from relevant stakeholders, including adults with intellectual disability, families or carers of a person with intellectual disability, and professionals who engage with people with intellectual disability.

Report empirical data from primary research methodology.

Be published in a peer-reviewed journal after January 1990.

Be available in English.

Full text screening was completed by two independent researchers (MD and EEP). Articles were excluded if consent was only briefly discussed or if it focused on consent for research, capacity assessment, or participant knowledge or comprehension. Any conflicts were resolved through discussion with an independent third researcher (IS).

Additional studies were identified through an ancestral search and by hand-searching three major journals relevant to intellectual disability research. Journals were selected if they had published more than one included article for this review or in previous literature reviews conducted by the research team.

Quality assessment

Two independent researchers (MD and IS) assessed study quality with the QualSyst tool, 41 which can assess both qualitative and quantitative research papers. After evaluating the distribution of scores, a threshold value of 55% was used, as suggested by QualSyst 41 to exclude poor-quality studies but capture enough studies overall. Any conflicts between the quality assessment scores were resolved by a third researcher (EEP). For mixed-method studies, both qualitative and quantitative quality scores were calculated, and the higher value used.

Data collection

Two independent researchers (MD and JH) reviewed each study and extracted relevant details, including study size, participant demographics, year, country of publication, study design, data analysis and major outcomes reported. Researchers used standardised data collection forms designed, with input from senior researchers with expertise in qualitative research (IS and EEP), to extract data relevant to the review’s research aims. The form was piloted on one study, and a second iteration made based on feedback. These forms captured data on study design, methods, participants, any factors affecting the process of informed consent and study limitations. Data included descriptions and paragraphs outlining key findings, the healthcare context, verbatim participant quotes and any quantitative analyses or statistics. Missing or unclear data were noted.

Data analysis

A pilot literature search showed significant heterogeneity in methodology of studies, limiting the applicability of traditional quantitative analysis (ie, meta-analysis). Instead, inductive thematic analysis was chosen as an alternative methodology 42 43 that has been used in recent systematic reviews examining barriers and enablers of other health processes. 44 45 The six-phase approach described by Braun and Clarke was used. 46 47 A researcher (MD) independently coded the extracted data of each study line-by-line, with subsequent data grouped into pre-existing codes or new concepts when necessary. Codes were reviewed iteratively and grouped into categories, subthemes and themes framed around the research question. Another independent researcher (JH) collated and analysed the data on study demographics, methods and limitations. The themes were reviewed by two senior researchers (EEP and IS).

Qualitative methods of effect size calculations have been described in the literature, 48 49 which was captured in this review by the number of studies that identified each subtheme, with an assigned frequency rating to compare their relative significance. Subthemes were given a frequency rating of A, B, C or D if they were identified by >10, 7–9, 4–6 or <3 articles, respectively. The overall significance of each theme was estimated by the number of studies that mentioned it and the GRADE framework, a stepwise approach to quality assessment using a four-tier rating system. Each study was evaluated for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. 50 51 Study sensitivity was assessed by counting the number of distinct subthemes included. 52 The quality of findings was designated high, moderate or low depending on the frequency ratings, the QualSyst score and the GRADE scores of studies supporting the finding. Finally, the relative contributions of each study were evaluated by the number of subthemes described, guided by previously reported methods for qualitative reviews. 52

Co-research

The findings were reviewed by two co-researchers with intellectual disability (JL and SS), with over 30 years combined experience as members and employees of a self-advocacy organisation. Guidance on the findings and an easy read summary was produced in line with best-practice inclusive research 53 54 over multiple discussions. Input from two health professional researchers (MD and EEP) provided data triangulation and sense-checking of findings.

Twenty-three articles were identified ( figure 1 ): 14 qualitative, 6 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods. Two papers included the same population of study participants: McCarthy 55 and McCarthy, 56 but had different research questions. Fovargue et al 57 was excluded due to a quality score of 35%. Common quality limitations were a lack of verification procedures to establish credibility and limited researcher reflexivity. No studies were excluded due to language requirements (as all were in English) or age restrictions (all studies had majority adult participants).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

PRISMA 2020 flowchart for the systematic review. 36

Studies were published from 1999 to 2020 and involved participant populations from the UK (n=18), USA (n=3), Sweden (n=1) and Ireland (n=1). Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 (median 21), and participants included people with intellectual disability (n=817), health professionals (n=272), carers and support people (n=48), and other professionals that work with people with intellectual disability (n=137, community service agency directors, social workers, administrative staff and care home staff). Ages of participants ranged from 8 to 84 years, though only Aman et al 58 included participants <18 years of age. This study was included as the article states very few children were included. Studies examined consent in different contexts, including contraception and sexual health (6/23 articles), 58–60 medications (5/23 articles), 58–62 emergency healthcare, 63 cervical screening, 64 community referrals, 58–61 65 mental health, 66 hydrotherapy, 64 blood collection 67 and broad decision-making consent without a specific context. 65 68–71 A detailed breakdown of each study is included in online supplemental appendix 3 .

Six major themes were identified from the studies, summarised in figure 2 . An overview of included studies showing study sensitivity, effect size, QualSyst and GRADE scores is given in online supplemental appendix 4 . Studies with higher QualSyst and GRADE scores contributed more to this review’s findings and tended to include more subthemes; specifically, Rogers et al , 66 Sowney and Barr, 63 Höglund and Larsson, 72 and McCarthy 55 and McCarthy. 56 Figure 3 gives the easy read version of theme 1, with the full easy read summary in online supplemental appendix 5 .

Summary of the identified six themes and subthemes.

Theme 1 of the easy read summary.

Theme 1—Health professionals’ attitudes and lack of education about informed consent

Health professionals’ attitudes and practices were frequently (18/21) identified as factors affecting the informed consent process, with substantial evidence supporting this theme. Studies noted the lack of training for health professionals in supporting informed consent for people with intellectual disability, their desire for further education, and stereotypes and discrimination perpetuated by health professionals.

Lack of health professional education on informed consent and disability discrimination legislation

Multiple studies reported inconsistent informed consent practices, for various reasons: some reported that health professionals ‘forgot’ to or ‘did not realise consent was necessary’, 63 73 but inconsistent consent practices were also attributed to healthcare providers’ unfamiliarity with consent guidelines and poor education on this topic. Carlson et al 73 reported that only 44% of general practitioners (GPs) were aware of consent guidelines, and there was the misconception that consent was unnecessary for people with intellectual disability. Similarly, studies of psychologists 66 and nurses 63 found that many were unfamiliar with their obligations to obtain consent, despite the existence of anti-discrimination legislation. People with intellectual disability describe feeling discriminated against by health professionals, reflected in comments such as ‘I can tell, my doctor just thinks I’m stupid – I'm nothing to him’. 74 Poor consent practices by health professionals were observed in Goldsmith et al , 67 while health professionals surveyed by McCarthy 56 were unaware of their responsibility to provide accessible health information to women with intellectual disability. Improving health professional education and training was suggested by multiple studies as a way to remove this barrier. 63 65–67 69 73

Lack of training on best practices for health professions caring for people with intellectual disability

A lack of training in caring for and communicating with people with intellectual disability was also described by midwives, 72 psychologists, 66 nurses, 63 pharmacists 61 and GPs. 56 72 75 Health professionals lacked knowledge about best practice approaches to providing equitable healthcare consent processes through reasonable adjustments such as accessible health information, 56 60 66 longer appointments times, 60 72 simple English 62 67 and flexible approaches to patient needs. 63 72

Health professionals’ stereotyping and assumptions of incapacity

Underlying stereotypes contributed to some health professionals’ (including nurses, 63 GPs 56 and physiotherapists 64 ) belief that people with intellectual disability lack capacity and therefore, do not require opportunities for informed consent. 56 64 In a survey of professionals referring people with intellectual disability to a disability service, the second most common reason for not obtaining consent was ‘patient unable to understand’. 73

Proxy consent as an inappropriate alternative

People with intellectual disability are rarely the final decision-maker in their medical choices, with many health providers seeking proxy consent from carers, support workers and family members, despite its legal invalidity. In McCarthy’s study (2010), 18/23 women with intellectual disability said the decision to start contraception was made by someone else. Many GPs appeared unaware that proxy consent is invalid in the UK. 56 Similar reports came from people with intellectual disability, 55 56 60 64 69 76 health professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health, psychologists), 56 63 64 66 77 support people 64 77 and non-medical professionals, 65 73 and capacity was rarely documented. 56 62 77

Exclusion of people with intellectual disability from decision-making discussions

Studies described instances where health professionals made decisions for their patients with intellectual disability or coerced patients into a choice. 55 72 74 76 77 In Ledger et al 77 , only 62% of women with intellectual disability were involved in the discussion about contraception, and only 38% made the final decision, and others stated in Wiseman and Ferrie 74 : ‘I was not given the opportunity to explore the different options. I was told what one I should take’. Three papers outlined instances where the choices of people with intellectual disability were ignored despite possessing capacity 65 66 69 and when a procedure continued despite them withdrawing consent. 69

Theme 2—Inadequate accessible health information

Lack of accessible health information.

The lack of accessible health information was the most frequently identified subtheme (16/23 studies). Some studies reported that health professionals provided information to carers instead, 60 avoided providing easy read information due to concerns about ‘offending’ patients 75 or only provided verbal information. 56 67 Informed consent was supported when health professionals recognised the importance of providing medical information 64 and when it was provided in an accessible format. 60 Alternative approaches to health information were explored, including virtual reality 68 and in-person education sessions, 59 with varying results. Overall, the need to provide information in different formats tailored to an individual’s communication needs, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach, was emphasised by both people with intellectual disability 60 and health professionals. 66

Insufficient information provided

Studies described situations where insufficient information was provided to people with intellectual disability to make informed decisions. For example, some people felt the information from their GP was often too basic to be helpful (Fish et al 60 ) and wanted additional information on consent forms (Rose et al 78 ).

Theme 3—The involvement of support people

Support people (including carers, family members and group home staff) were identified in 11 articles as both enablers of and barriers to informed consent. The antagonistic nature of these findings and lower frequency of subthemes are reflected in the lower quality assessments of evidence.

Support people facilitated communication with health professionals

Some studies reported carers bridging communication barriers with health to support informed consent. 63 64 McCarthy 56 found 21/23 of women with intellectual disability preferred to see doctors with a support person due to perceived benefits: ‘Sometimes I don’t understand it, so they have to explain it to my carer, so they can explain it to me easier’. Most GPs in this study (93%) also agreed that support people aided communication.

Support people helped people with intellectual disability make decisions

By advocating for people with intellectual disability, carers encouraged decision-making, 64 74 provided health information, 74 77 emotional support 76 and assisted with reading or remembering health information. 55 58 76 Some people with intellectual disability explicitly appreciated their support person’s involvement, 60 such as in McCarthy’s 55 study where 18/23 participants felt supported and safer when a support person was involved.

Support people impeded individual autonomy

The study by Wiseman and Ferrie 74 found that while younger participants with intellectual disability felt family members empowered their decision-making, older women felt family members impaired their ability to give informed consent. This was reflected in interviews with carers who questioned the capacity of the person with intellectual disability they supported and stated they would guide them to pick the ‘best choice’ or even over-ride their choices. 64 Studies of psychologists and community service directors described instances where the decision of family or carers was prioritised over the wishes of the person with intellectual disability. 65 66 Some women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s studies (2010, 2009) 55 56 appeared to have been coerced into using contraception by parental pressures or fear of losing group home support.

Theme 4—Systemic constraints within healthcare systems

Time restraints affect informed consent and accessible healthcare.

Resource limitations create time constraints that impair the consent process and have been identified as a barrier by psychologists, 66 GPs, 56 hospital nurses 63 and community disability workers. 73 Rogers et al 66 highlighted that a personalised approach that could improve informed decision-making is restricted by inflexible medical models. Only two studies described flexible patient-centred approaches to consent. 60 72 A survey of primary care practices in 2007 reported that most did not modify their cervical screening information for patients with intellectual disability because it was not practical. 75

Inflexible models of consent

Both people with intellectual disability 76 and health professionals 66 recognised that consent is traditionally obtained through one-off interactions prior to an intervention. Yet, for people with intellectual disability, consent should ideally be an ongoing process that begins before an appointment and continues between subsequent ones. Other studies have tended to describe one-off interactions where decision-making was not revisited at subsequent appointments. 56 60 72 76

Lack of systemic supports

In one survey, self-advocates highlighted a lack of information on medication for people with intellectual disability and suggested a telephone helpline and a centralised source of information to support consent. 60 Health professionals also want greater systemic support, such as a health professional specialised in intellectual disability care to support other staff, 72 or a pharmacist specifically to help patients with intellectual disability. 61 Studies highlighted a lack of guidelines about healthcare needs of people with intellectual disabilities such as contraceptive counselling 72 or primary care. 75

Theme 5—Person-centred informed consent

Ten studies identified factors related to a person-centred approach to informed consent, grouped below into three subthemes. Health professionals should tailor their practice when obtaining informed consent from people with intellectual disability by considering how these subthemes relate to the individual. Each subtheme was described five times in the literature with a relative frequency rating of ‘C’, contributing to overall lower quality scores.

Previous experience with decision-making

Arscott et al 71 found that the ability of people with intellectual disability to consent changed with their verbal and memory skills and in different clinical vignettes, supporting the view of ‘functional’ capacity specific to the context of the medical decision. Although previous experiences with decision-making did not influence informed consent in this paper, other studies suggest that people with intellectual disability accustomed to independent decision-making were more able to make informed medical decisions, 66 70 and those who live independently were more likely to make independent healthcare decisions. 56 Health professionals should be aware that their patients with intellectual disability will have variable experience with decision-making and provide individualised support to meet their needs.

Variable awareness about healthcare rights

Consent processes should be tailored to the health literacy of patients, including emphasising available choices and the option to refuse treatment. In some studies, medical decisions were not presented to people with intellectual disability as a choice, 64 and people with intellectual disability were not informed of their legal right to accessible health information. 56

Power differences and acquiescence

Acquiescence by people with intellectual disability due to common and repeated experiences of trauma—that is, their tendency to agree with suggestions made by carers and health professionals, often to avoid upsetting others—was identified as an ongoing barrier. In McCarthy’s (2009) interviews with women with intellectual disability, some participants implicitly rejected the idea that they might make their own healthcare decisions: ‘They’re the carers, they have responsibility for me’. Others appeared to have made decisions to appease their carers: ‘I have the jab (contraceptive injection) so I can’t be blamed for getting pregnant’. 55 Two studies highlighted that health professionals need to be mindful of power imbalances when discussing consent with people with intellectual disability to ensure the choices are truly autonomous. 61 66

Theme 6—Effective communication between health professionals and patients

Implementation of reasonable adjustments for verbal and written information.

Simple language was always preferred by people with intellectual disability. 60 67 Other communication aids used in decision-making included repetition, short sentences, models, pictures and easy read brochures. 72 Another reasonable adjustment is providing the opportunity to ask questions, which women with intellectual disability in McCarthy’s (2009) study reported did not occur. 55

Tailored communication methods including non-verbal communication

Midwives noted that continuity of care allows them to develop rapport and understand the communication preferences of people with intellectual disability. 72 This is not always possible; for emergency nurses, the lack of background information about patients with intellectual disability made it challenging to understand their communication preferences. 63 The use of non-verbal communication, such as body language, was noted as underutilised 62 66 and people with intellectual disability supported the use of hearing loops, braille and sign language. 60

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review investigating the barriers and enablers of the informed consent process for healthcare procedures for people with intellectual disability. The integrative review by Goldsmith et al 26 examined capacity assessment and shares only three articles with this systematic review. 69 71 73 Since the 2000s, there has been a paradigm shift in which capacity is no longer considered a fixed ability that only some individuals possess 38 39 but instead as ‘functional’: a flexible ability that changes over time and in different contexts, 79 reflected in Goldsmith’s review. An individual’s capacity can be supported through various measures, including how information is communicated and how the decision-making process is approached. 18 80 By recognising the barriers and enablers identified in this review, physicians can help ensure the consent process for their patients with intellectual disability is both valid and truly informed. This review has highlighted the problems of inaccessible health information, insufficient clinical education on how to make reasonable adjustments and lack of person-centred trauma-informed care.

Recommendations

Health professionals require training in the informed consent process for people with intellectual disability, particularly in effective and respectful communication, reasonable adjustments and trauma-informed care. Reasonable adjustments include offering longer or multiple appointments, using accessible resources (such as easy read information or shared decision-making tools) and allowing patient choices (such as to record a consultation or involve a support person). Co-researchers reported that many people with intellectual disability prefer to go without a support person because they find it difficult to challenge their decisions and feel ignored if the health professional only talks to the support person. People with intellectual disability also feel they cannot seek second opinions before making medical decisions or feel pressured to provide consent, raising the possibility of coercion. These experiences contribute to healthcare trauma. Co-researchers raised the importance of building rapport with the person with intellectual disability and of making reasonable adjustments, such as actively advocating for the person’s autonomy, clearly stating all options including the choice to refuse treatment, providing opportunities to contribute to discussions and multiple appointments to ask questions and understand information. They felt that without these efforts to support consent, health professionals can reinforce traumatic healthcare experiences for people with intellectual disability. Co-researchers noted instances where choices were made by doctors without discussion and where they were only given a choice after requesting one and expressed concern that these barriers are greater for those with higher support needs.

Co-researchers showed how these experiences contributed to mistrust of health professionals and poorer health outcomes. In one situation, a co-researcher was not informed of a medication’s withdrawal effects, resulting in significant side-effects when it was ceased. Many people with intellectual disability describe a poor relationship with their health professionals, finding it difficult to trust health information provided due to previous traumatic experiences of disrespect, coercion, lack of choice and inadequate support. Many feel they cannot speak up due to the power imbalance and fear of retaliation. Poor consent practices and lack of reasonable adjustments directly harm therapeutic alliances by reducing trust, contribute to healthcare trauma and lead to poorer health outcomes for people with intellectual disability.

Additional education and training for health professionals is urgently needed in the areas of informed consent, reasonable adjustments and effective communication with people with intellectual disability. The experiences of health professionals within the research team confirmed that there is limited training in providing high-quality healthcare for people with intellectual disability, including reasonable adjustments and accessible health information. Co-researchers also suggested that education should be provided to carers and support people to help them better advocate for people with intellectual disability.

Health information should be provided in a multimodal format, including written easy read information. Many countries have regulation protecting the right to accessible health information and communication support to make an informed choice, such as UK’s Accessible Information Standard, 81 and Australia’s Charter of Health Care Rights, 24 yet these are rarely observed. Steps to facilitate this include routinely asking patients about information requirements, system alerts for an individual’s needs or routinely providing reasonable adjustments. 82 Co-researchers agreed that there is a lack of accessible health information, particularly about medications, and that diagrams and illustrations are underutilised. There is a critical need for more inclusive and accessible resources to help health professionals support informed consent in a safe and high-quality health system. These resources should be created through methods of inclusive research, such as co-production, actively involving people with intellectual disability in the planning, creation, and feedback process. 53

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review involved two co-researchers with intellectual disability in sense-checking findings and co-creating the easy read summary. Two co-authors who are health professionals provided additional sense-checking of findings from a different stakeholder perspective. In future research, this could be extended by involving people with intellectual disability in the design and planning of the study as per recommendations for best-practice inclusive research. 53 83

The current literature is limited by low use of inclusive research practices in research involving people with intellectual disability, increasing vulnerability to external biases (eg, inaccessible questionnaires, involvement of carers in data collection, overcompliance or acquiescence and absence of researcher reflexivity). Advisory groups or co-research with people with intellectual disability were only used in five studies. 58 60 68 74 76 Other limitations include unclear selection criteria, low sample sizes, missing data, using gatekeepers in patient selection and predominance of UK-based studies—increasing the risk of bias and reducing transferability. Nine studies (out of 15 involving people with intellectual disability) explicitly excluded those with severe or profound intellectual disability, reflecting a selection bias; only one study specifically focused on people with intellectual disability with higher support needs. Studies were limited to a few healthcare contexts, with a focus on consent about sexual health, contraception and medications.

The heterogeneity and qualitative nature of studies made it challenging to apply traditional meta-analysis. However, to promote consistency in qualitative research, the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines were followed. 36 37 Although no meta-analyses occurred, the duplication of study populations in McCarthy 2009 and 2010 likely contributed to increased significance of findings reported in both studies. Most included studies (13/23) were published over 10 years ago, reducing the current relevance of this review’s findings. Nonetheless, the major findings reflect underlying systemic issues within the health system, which are unlikely to have been resolved since the articles were published, as the just-released final report of the Australian Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability highlights. 84 There is an urgent need for more inclusive studies to explore the recommendations and preferences of people with intellectual disability about healthcare choices.

Informed consent processes for people with intellectual disability should include accessible information and reasonable adjustments, be tailored to individuals’ needs and comply with consent and disability legislation. Resources, guidelines and healthcare education are needed and should cover how to involve carers and support people, address systemic healthcare problems, promote a person-centred approach and ensure effective communication. These resources and future research must use principles of inclusive co-production—involving people with intellectual disability at all stages. Additionally, research is needed on people with higher support needs and in specific contexts where informed consent is vital but under-researched, such as cancer screening, palliative care, prenatal and newborn screening, surgical procedures, genetic medicine and advanced therapeutics such as gene-based therapies.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Maulik PK ,
• Mascarenhas MN ,
• Mathers CD , et al
• World Health Organisation
• Council for Intellectual Disability
• Emerson E ,
• Shogren KA ,
• Wehmeyer ML ,
• Reese RM , et al
• Cordasco KM
• Hallock JL ,
• Jordens CFC ,
• McGrath C , et al
• Brenner LH ,
• Brenner AT ,
• United Nations Population Fund
• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
• The Joint Commission
• Beauchamp TL ,
• Childress JF
• New South Wales Attorney General
• United Nations General Assembly
• Strnadová I ,
• Loblinzk J ,
• Scully JL , et al
• MacPhail C ,
• McKay K , et al
• Keywood K ,
• Fovargue S ,
• Goldsmith L ,
• Skirton H ,
• Cash J , et al
• Morris CD ,
• Niederbuhl JM ,
• Arscott K ,
• Fisher CB ,
• Davidson PW , et al
• Giampieri M
• Shamseer L ,
• Clarke M , et al
• McKenzie JE ,
• Bossuyt PM , et al
• Flemming K ,
• McInnes E , et al
• Appelbaum PS
• ↵ Covidence systematic review software . Melbourne, Australia ,
• Proudfoot K
• Papadopoulos I ,
• Koulouglioti C ,
• Lazzarino R , et al
• Onwuegbuzie AJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• Guyatt GH ,
• Vist GE , et al
• Garcia-Lee B
• Brimblecombe J , et al
• Benson BA ,
• Farmer CA , et al
• Ferguson L ,
• Graham YNH ,
• Gerrard D ,
• Laight S , et al
• Huneke NTM ,
• Halder N , et al
• Ferguson M ,
• Jarrett D ,
• McGuire BE , et al
• Woodward V ,
• Jackson L , et al
• Conboy-Hill S ,
• Leafman J ,
• Nehrenz GM , et al
• Höglund B ,
• Carlson T ,
• English S , et al
• Wiseman P ,
• Walmsley J ,
• Tilley E , et al
• Khatkar HS , et al
• Holland AJ , et al
• Beauchamp TL
• England National Health Service
• National Health Service England
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2
• Data supplement 3
• Data supplement 4
• Data supplement 5

Contributors MD, EEP and IS conceived the idea for the systematic review. MD drafted the search strategy which was refined by EEP and IS. MD and EEP completed article screening. MD and IS completed quality assessments of included articles. MD and JH completed data extraction. MD drafted the original manuscript. JL and SS were co-researchers who sense-checked findings and were consulted to formulate dissemination plans. JL and SS co-produced the easy read summary with MD, CM, JH, EEP and IS. MD, JLS, EEP and IS reviewed manuscript wording. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved it for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. MD is the guarantor responsible for the overall content of this manuscript.

Funding This systematic literature review was funded by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Targeted Call for Research (TCR) into Improving health of people with intellectual disability. Research grant title "GeneEQUAL: equitable and accessible genomic healthcare for people with intellectual disability". NHMRC application ID: 2022/GNT2015753.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles

• Editorial It is up to healthcare professionals to talk to us in a way that we can understand: informed consent processes in people with an intellectual disability Jonathon Ding Richard Keagan-Bull Irene Tuffrey-Wijne BMJ Quality & Safety 2024; 33 277-279 Published Online First: 30 Jan 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016830

Read the full text or download the PDF:

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research

Stephen j. gentles.

1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada

4 CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS 408, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada

Cathy Charles

David b. nicholas.

2 Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Jenny Ploeg

3 School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada

K. Ann McKibbon

Associated data.

The systematic methods overview used as a worked example in this article (Gentles SJ, Charles C, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA: Sampling in qualitative research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qual Rep 2015, 20(11):1772-1789) is available from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss11/5 .

Overviews of methods are potentially useful means to increase clarity and enhance collective understanding of specific methods topics that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness. This type of review represents a distinct literature synthesis method, although to date, its methodology remains relatively undeveloped despite several aspects that demand unique review procedures. The purpose of this paper is to initiate discussion about what a rigorous systematic approach to reviews of methods, referred to here as systematic methods overviews , might look like by providing tentative suggestions for approaching specific challenges likely to be encountered. The guidance offered here was derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research.

The guidance is organized into several principles that highlight specific objectives for this type of review given the common challenges that must be overcome to achieve them. Optional strategies for achieving each principle are also proposed, along with discussion of how they were successfully implemented in the overview on sampling. We describe seven paired principles and strategies that address the following aspects: delimiting the initial set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology used to describe specific methods topics, and generating rigorous verifiable analytic interpretations. Since a broad aim in systematic methods overviews is to describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms, we suggest that iterative decision making at various stages of the review process, and a rigorous qualitative approach to analysis are necessary features of this review type.

Conclusions

We believe that the principles and strategies provided here will be useful to anyone choosing to undertake a systematic methods overview. This paper represents an initial effort to promote high quality critical evaluations of the literature regarding problematic methods topics, which have the potential to promote clearer, shared understandings, and accelerate advances in research methods. Further work is warranted to develop more definitive guidance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

While reviews of methods are not new, they represent a distinct review type whose methodology remains relatively under-addressed in the literature despite the clear implications for unique review procedures. One of few examples to describe it is a chapter containing reflections of two contributing authors in a book of 21 reviews on methodological topics compiled for the British National Health Service, Health Technology Assessment Program [ 1 ]. Notable is their observation of how the differences between the methods reviews and conventional quantitative systematic reviews, specifically attributable to their varying content and purpose, have implications for defining what qualifies as systematic. While the authors describe general aspects of “systematicity” (including rigorous application of a methodical search, abstraction, and analysis), they also describe a high degree of variation within the category of methods reviews itself and so offer little in the way of concrete guidance. In this paper, we present tentative concrete guidance, in the form of a preliminary set of proposed principles and optional strategies, for a rigorous systematic approach to reviewing and evaluating the literature on quantitative or qualitative methods topics. For purposes of this article, we have used the term systematic methods overview to emphasize the notion of a systematic approach to such reviews.

The conventional focus of rigorous literature reviews (i.e., review types for which systematic methods have been codified, including the various approaches to quantitative systematic reviews [ 2 – 4 ], and the numerous forms of qualitative and mixed methods literature synthesis [ 5 – 10 ]) is to synthesize empirical research findings from multiple studies. By contrast, the focus of overviews of methods, including the systematic approach we advocate, is to synthesize guidance on methods topics. The literature consulted for such reviews may include the methods literature, methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports, or both. Thus, this paper adds to previous work published in this journal—namely, recent preliminary guidance for conducting reviews of theory [ 11 ]—that has extended the application of systematic review methods to novel review types that are concerned with subject matter other than empirical research findings.

Published examples of methods overviews illustrate the varying objectives they can have. One objective is to establish methodological standards for appraisal purposes. For example, reviews of existing quality appraisal standards have been used to propose universal standards for appraising the quality of primary qualitative research [ 12 ] or evaluating qualitative research reports [ 13 ]. A second objective is to survey the methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports to establish current practices on methods use and reporting practices, which Moher and colleagues [ 14 ] recommend as a means for establishing the needs to be addressed in reporting guidelines (see, for example [ 15 , 16 ]). A third objective for a methods review is to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness within the available methods literature. An example of this is a overview whose objective was to review the inconsistent definitions of intention-to-treat analysis (the methodologically preferred approach to analyze randomized controlled trial data) that have been offered in the methods literature and propose a solution for improving conceptual clarity [ 17 ]. Such reviews are warranted because students and researchers who must learn or apply research methods typically lack the time to systematically search, retrieve, review, and compare the available literature to develop a thorough and critical sense of the varied approaches regarding certain controversial or ambiguous methods topics.

While systematic methods overviews , as a review type, include both reviews of the methods literature and reviews of methods-relevant sections from empirical study reports, the guidance provided here is primarily applicable to reviews of the methods literature since it was derived from the experience of conducting such a review [ 18 ], described below. To our knowledge, there are no well-developed proposals on how to rigorously conduct such reviews. Such guidance would have the potential to improve the thoroughness and credibility of critical evaluations of the methods literature, which could increase their utility as a tool for generating understandings that advance research methods, both qualitative and quantitative. Our aim in this paper is thus to initiate discussion about what might constitute a rigorous approach to systematic methods overviews. While we hope to promote rigor in the conduct of systematic methods overviews wherever possible, we do not wish to suggest that all methods overviews need be conducted to the same standard. Rather, we believe that the level of rigor may need to be tailored pragmatically to the specific review objectives, which may not always justify the resource requirements of an intensive review process.

The example systematic methods overview on sampling in qualitative research

The principles and strategies we propose in this paper are derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ]. The main objective of that methods overview was to bring clarity and deeper understanding of the prominent concepts related to sampling in qualitative research (purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, etc.). Specifically, we interpreted the available guidance, commenting on areas lacking clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness (without proposing any recommendations on how to do sampling). This was achieved by a comparative and critical analysis of publications representing the most influential (i.e., highly cited) guidance across several methodological traditions in qualitative research.

The specific methods and procedures for the overview on sampling [ 18 ] from which our proposals are derived were developed both after soliciting initial input from local experts in qualitative research and an expert health librarian (KAM) and through ongoing careful deliberation throughout the review process. To summarize, in that review, we employed a transparent and rigorous approach to search the methods literature, selected publications for inclusion according to a purposeful and iterative process, abstracted textual data using structured abstraction forms, and analyzed (synthesized) the data using a systematic multi-step approach featuring abstraction of text, summary of information in matrices, and analytic comparisons.

For this article, we reflected on both the problems and challenges encountered at different stages of the review and our means for selecting justifiable procedures to deal with them. Several principles were then derived by considering the generic nature of these problems, while the generalizable aspects of the procedures used to address them formed the basis of optional strategies. Further details of the specific methods and procedures used in the overview on qualitative sampling are provided below to illustrate both the types of objectives and challenges that reviewers will likely need to consider and our approach to implementing each of the principles and strategies.

Organization of the guidance into principles and strategies

For the purposes of this article, principles are general statements outlining what we propose are important aims or considerations within a particular review process, given the unique objectives or challenges to be overcome with this type of review. These statements follow the general format, “considering the objective or challenge of X, we propose Y to be an important aim or consideration.” Strategies are optional and flexible approaches for implementing the previous principle outlined. Thus, generic challenges give rise to principles, which in turn give rise to strategies.

We organize the principles and strategies below into three sections corresponding to processes characteristic of most systematic literature synthesis approaches: literature identification and selection ; data abstraction from the publications selected for inclusion; and analysis , including critical appraisal and synthesis of the abstracted data. Within each section, we also describe the specific methodological decisions and procedures used in the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ] to illustrate how the principles and strategies for each review process were applied and implemented in a specific case. We expect this guidance and accompanying illustrations will be useful for anyone considering engaging in a methods overview, particularly those who may be familiar with conventional systematic review methods but may not yet appreciate some of the challenges specific to reviewing the methods literature.

Results and discussion

Literature identification and selection.

The identification and selection process includes search and retrieval of publications and the development and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to select the publications that will be abstracted and analyzed in the final review. Literature identification and selection for overviews of the methods literature is challenging and potentially more resource-intensive than for most reviews of empirical research. This is true for several reasons that we describe below, alongside discussion of the potential solutions. Additionally, we suggest in this section how the selection procedures can be chosen to match the specific analytic approach used in methods overviews.

Delimiting a manageable set of publications

One aspect of methods overviews that can make identification and selection challenging is the fact that the universe of literature containing potentially relevant information regarding most methods-related topics is expansive and often unmanageably so. Reviewers are faced with two large categories of literature: the methods literature , where the possible publication types include journal articles, books, and book chapters; and the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports , where the possible publication types include journal articles, monographs, books, theses, and conference proceedings. In our systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, exhaustively searching (including retrieval and first-pass screening) all publication types across both categories of literature for information on a single methods-related topic was too burdensome to be feasible. The following proposed principle follows from the need to delimit a manageable set of literature for the review.

Principle #1:

Considering the broad universe of potentially relevant literature, we propose that an important objective early in the identification and selection stage is to delimit a manageable set of methods-relevant publications in accordance with the objectives of the methods overview.

Strategy #1:

To limit the set of methods-relevant publications that must be managed in the selection process, reviewers have the option to initially review only the methods literature, and exclude the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports, provided this aligns with the review’s particular objectives.

We propose that reviewers are justified in choosing to select only the methods literature when the objective is to map out the range of recognized concepts relevant to a methods topic, to summarize the most authoritative or influential definitions or meanings for methods-related concepts, or to demonstrate a problematic lack of clarity regarding a widely established methods-related concept and potentially make recommendations for a preferred approach to the methods topic in question. For example, in the case of the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ], the primary aim was to define areas lacking in clarity for multiple widely established sampling-related topics. In the review on intention-to-treat in the context of missing outcome data [ 17 ], the authors identified a lack of clarity based on multiple inconsistent definitions in the literature and went on to recommend separating the issue of how to handle missing outcome data from the issue of whether an intention-to-treat analysis can be claimed.

In contrast to strategy #1, it may be appropriate to select the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports when the objective is to illustrate how a methods concept is operationalized in research practice or reported by authors. For example, one could review all the publications in 2 years’ worth of issues of five high-impact field-related journals to answer questions about how researchers describe implementing a particular method or approach, or to quantify how consistently they define or report using it. Such reviews are often used to highlight gaps in the reporting practices regarding specific methods, which may be used to justify items to address in reporting guidelines (for example, [ 14 – 16 ]).

It is worth recognizing that other authors have advocated broader positions regarding the scope of literature to be considered in a review, expanding on our perspective. Suri [ 10 ] (who, like us, emphasizes how different sampling strategies are suitable for different literature synthesis objectives) has, for example, described a two-stage literature sampling procedure (pp. 96–97). First, reviewers use an initial approach to conduct a broad overview of the field—for reviews of methods topics, this would entail an initial review of the research methods literature. This is followed by a second more focused stage in which practical examples are purposefully selected—for methods reviews, this would involve sampling the empirical literature to illustrate key themes and variations. While this approach is seductive in its capacity to generate more in depth and interpretive analytic findings, some reviewers may consider it too resource-intensive to include the second step no matter how selective the purposeful sampling. In the overview on sampling where we stopped after the first stage [ 18 ], we discussed our selective focus on the methods literature as a limitation that left opportunities for further analysis of the literature. We explicitly recommended, for example, that theoretical sampling was a topic for which a future review of the methods sections of empirical reports was justified to answer specific questions identified in the primary review.

Ultimately, reviewers must make pragmatic decisions that balance resource considerations, combined with informed predictions about the depth and complexity of literature available on their topic, with the stated objectives of their review. The remaining principles and strategies apply primarily to overviews that include the methods literature, although some aspects may be relevant to reviews that include empirical study reports.

Searching beyond standard bibliographic databases

An important reality affecting identification and selection in overviews of the methods literature is the increased likelihood for relevant publications to be located in sources other than journal articles (which is usually not the case for overviews of empirical research, where journal articles generally represent the primary publication type). In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], out of 41 full-text publications retrieved and reviewed, only 4 were journal articles, while 37 were books or book chapters. Since many books and book chapters did not exist electronically, their full text had to be physically retrieved in hardcopy, while 11 publications were retrievable only through interlibrary loan or purchase request. The tasks associated with such retrieval are substantially more time-consuming than electronic retrieval. Since a substantial proportion of methods-related guidance may be located in publication types that are less comprehensively indexed in standard bibliographic databases, identification and retrieval thus become complicated processes.

Principle #2:

Considering that important sources of methods guidance can be located in non-journal publication types (e.g., books, book chapters) that tend to be poorly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, it is important to consider alternative search methods for identifying relevant publications to be further screened for inclusion.

Strategy #2:

To identify books, book chapters, and other non-journal publication types not thoroughly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, reviewers may choose to consult one or more of the following less standard sources: Google Scholar, publisher web sites, or expert opinion.

In the case of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], Google Scholar had two advantages over other standard bibliographic databases: it indexes and returns records of books and book chapters likely to contain guidance on qualitative research methods topics; and it has been validated as providing higher citation counts than ISI Web of Science (a producer of numerous bibliographic databases accessible through institutional subscription) for several non-biomedical disciplines including the social sciences where qualitative research methods are prominently used [ 19 – 21 ]. While we identified numerous useful publications by consulting experts, the author publication lists generated through Google Scholar searches were uniquely useful to identify more recent editions of methods books identified by experts.

Searching without relevant metadata

Determining what publications to select for inclusion in the overview on sampling [ 18 ] could only rarely be accomplished by reviewing the publication’s metadata. This was because for the many books and other non-journal type publications we identified as possibly relevant, the potential content of interest would be located in only a subsection of the publication. In this common scenario for reviews of the methods literature (as opposed to methods overviews that include empirical study reports), reviewers will often be unable to employ standard title, abstract, and keyword database searching or screening as a means for selecting publications.

Principle #3:

Considering that the presence of information about the topic of interest may not be indicated in the metadata for books and similar publication types, it is important to consider other means of identifying potentially useful publications for further screening.

Strategy #3:

One approach to identifying potentially useful books and similar publication types is to consider what classes of such publications (e.g., all methods manuals for a certain research approach) are likely to contain relevant content, then identify, retrieve, and review the full text of corresponding publications to determine whether they contain information on the topic of interest.

In the example of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], the topic of interest (sampling) was one of numerous topics covered in the general qualitative research methods manuals. Consequently, examples from this class of publications first had to be identified for retrieval according to non-keyword-dependent criteria. Thus, all methods manuals within the three research traditions reviewed (grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study) that might contain discussion of sampling were sought through Google Scholar and expert opinion, their full text obtained, and hand-searched for relevant content to determine eligibility. We used tables of contents and index sections of books to aid this hand searching.

Purposefully selecting literature on conceptual grounds

A final consideration in methods overviews relates to the type of analysis used to generate the review findings. Unlike quantitative systematic reviews where reviewers aim for accurate or unbiased quantitative estimates—something that requires identifying and selecting the literature exhaustively to obtain all relevant data available (i.e., a complete sample)—in methods overviews, reviewers must describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms to achieve review objectives. In other words, the aim in methods overviews is to seek coverage of the qualitative concepts relevant to the methods topic at hand. For example, in the overview of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], achieving review objectives entailed providing conceptual coverage of eight sampling-related topics that emerged as key domains. The following principle recognizes that literature sampling should therefore support generating qualitative conceptual data as the input to analysis.

Principle #4:

Since the analytic findings of a systematic methods overview are generated through qualitative description and interpretation of the literature on a specified topic, selection of the literature should be guided by a purposeful strategy designed to achieve adequate conceptual coverage (i.e., representing an appropriate degree of variation in relevant ideas) of the topic according to objectives of the review.

Strategy #4:

One strategy for choosing the purposeful approach to use in selecting the literature according to the review objectives is to consider whether those objectives imply exploring concepts either at a broad overview level, in which case combining maximum variation selection with a strategy that limits yield (e.g., critical case, politically important, or sampling for influence—described below) may be appropriate; or in depth, in which case purposeful approaches aimed at revealing innovative cases will likely be necessary.

In the methods overview on sampling, the implied scope was broad since we set out to review publications on sampling across three divergent qualitative research traditions—grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study—to facilitate making informative conceptual comparisons. Such an approach would be analogous to maximum variation sampling.

At the same time, the purpose of that review was to critically interrogate the clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness of literature from these traditions that was “most likely to have widely influenced students’ and researchers’ ideas about sampling” (p. 1774) [ 18 ]. In other words, we explicitly set out to review and critique the most established and influential (and therefore dominant) literature, since this represents a common basis of knowledge among students and researchers seeking understanding or practical guidance on sampling in qualitative research. To achieve this objective, we purposefully sampled publications according to the criterion of influence , which we operationalized as how often an author or publication has been referenced in print or informal discourse. This second sampling approach also limited the literature we needed to consider within our broad scope review to a manageable amount.

To operationalize this strategy of sampling for influence , we sought to identify both the most influential authors within a qualitative research tradition (all of whose citations were subsequently screened) and the most influential publications on the topic of interest by non-influential authors. This involved a flexible approach that combined multiple indicators of influence to avoid the dilemma that any single indicator might provide inadequate coverage. These indicators included bibliometric data (h-index for author influence [ 22 ]; number of cites for publication influence), expert opinion, and cross-references in the literature (i.e., snowball sampling). As a final selection criterion, a publication was included only if it made an original contribution in terms of novel guidance regarding sampling or a related concept; thus, purely secondary sources were excluded. Publish or Perish software (Anne-Wil Harzing; available at http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish ) was used to generate bibliometric data via the Google Scholar database. Figure  1 illustrates how identification and selection in the methods overview on sampling was a multi-faceted and iterative process. The authors selected as influential, and the publications selected for inclusion or exclusion are listed in Additional file 1 (Matrices 1, 2a, 2b).

Literature identification and selection process used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In summary, the strategies of seeking maximum variation and sampling for influence were employed in the sampling overview to meet the specific review objectives described. Reviewers will need to consider the full range of purposeful literature sampling approaches at their disposal in deciding what best matches the specific aims of their own reviews. Suri [ 10 ] has recently retooled Patton’s well-known typology of purposeful sampling strategies (originally intended for primary research) for application to literature synthesis, providing a useful resource in this respect.

Data abstraction

The purpose of data abstraction in rigorous literature reviews is to locate and record all data relevant to the topic of interest from the full text of included publications, making them available for subsequent analysis. Conventionally, a data abstraction form—consisting of numerous distinct conceptually defined fields to which corresponding information from the source publication is recorded—is developed and employed. There are several challenges, however, to the processes of developing the abstraction form and abstracting the data itself when conducting methods overviews, which we address here. Some of these problems and their solutions may be familiar to those who have conducted qualitative literature syntheses, which are similarly conceptual.

Iteratively defining conceptual information to abstract

In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], while we surveyed multiple sources beforehand to develop a list of concepts relevant for abstraction (e.g., purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, sample size), there was no way for us to anticipate some concepts prior to encountering them in the review process. Indeed, in many cases, reviewers are unable to determine the complete set of methods-related concepts that will be the focus of the final review a priori without having systematically reviewed the publications to be included. Thus, defining what information to abstract beforehand may not be feasible.

Principle #5:

Considering the potential impracticality of defining a complete set of relevant methods-related concepts from a body of literature one has not yet systematically read, selecting and defining fields for data abstraction must often be undertaken iteratively. Thus, concepts to be abstracted can be expected to grow and change as data abstraction proceeds.

Strategy #5:

Reviewers can develop an initial form or set of concepts for abstraction purposes according to standard methods (e.g., incorporating expert feedback, pilot testing) and remain attentive to the need to iteratively revise it as concepts are added or modified during the review. Reviewers should document revisions and return to re-abstract data from previously abstracted publications as the new data requirements are determined.

In the sampling overview [ 18 ], we developed and maintained the abstraction form in Microsoft Word. We derived the initial set of abstraction fields from our own knowledge of relevant sampling-related concepts, consultation with local experts, and reviewing a pilot sample of publications. Since the publications in this review included a large proportion of books, the abstraction process often began by flagging the broad sections within a publication containing topic-relevant information for detailed review to identify text to abstract. When reviewing flagged text, the reviewer occasionally encountered an unanticipated concept significant enough to warrant being added as a new field to the abstraction form. For example, a field was added to capture how authors described the timing of sampling decisions, whether before (a priori) or after (ongoing) starting data collection, or whether this was unclear. In these cases, we systematically documented the modification to the form and returned to previously abstracted publications to abstract any information that might be relevant to the new field.

The logic of this strategy is analogous to the logic used in a form of research synthesis called best fit framework synthesis (BFFS) [ 23 – 25 ]. In that method, reviewers initially code evidence using an a priori framework they have selected. When evidence cannot be accommodated by the selected framework, reviewers then develop new themes or concepts from which they construct a new expanded framework. Both the strategy proposed and the BFFS approach to research synthesis are notable for their rigorous and transparent means to adapt a final set of concepts to the content under review.

Accounting for inconsistent terminology

An important complication affecting the abstraction process in methods overviews is that the language used by authors to describe methods-related concepts can easily vary across publications. For example, authors from different qualitative research traditions often use different terms for similar methods-related concepts. Furthermore, as we found in the sampling overview [ 18 ], there may be cases where no identifiable term, phrase, or label for a methods-related concept is used at all, and a description of it is given instead. This can make searching the text for relevant concepts based on keywords unreliable.

Principle #6:

Since accepted terms may not be used consistently to refer to methods concepts, it is necessary to rely on the definitions for concepts, rather than keywords, to identify relevant information in the publication to abstract.

Strategy #6:

An effective means to systematically identify relevant information is to develop and iteratively adjust written definitions for key concepts (corresponding to abstraction fields) that are consistent with and as inclusive of as much of the literature reviewed as possible. Reviewers then seek information that matches these definitions (rather than keywords) when scanning a publication for relevant data to abstract.

In the abstraction process for the sampling overview [ 18 ], we noted the several concepts of interest to the review for which abstraction by keyword was particularly problematic due to inconsistent terminology across publications: sampling , purposeful sampling , sampling strategy , and saturation (for examples, see Additional file 1 , Matrices 3a, 3b, 4). We iteratively developed definitions for these concepts by abstracting text from publications that either provided an explicit definition or from which an implicit definition could be derived, which was recorded in fields dedicated to the concept’s definition. Using a method of constant comparison, we used text from definition fields to inform and modify a centrally maintained definition of the corresponding concept to optimize its fit and inclusiveness with the literature reviewed. Table  1 shows, as an example, the final definition constructed in this way for one of the central concepts of the review, qualitative sampling .

Final definition for qualitative sampling , including methodological tradition-specific variations

Developed after numerous iterations in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

We applied iteratively developed definitions when making decisions about what specific text to abstract for an existing field, which allowed us to abstract concept-relevant data even if no recognized keyword was used. For example, this was the case for the sampling-related concept, saturation , where the relevant text available for abstraction in one publication [ 26 ]—“to continue to collect data until nothing new was being observed or recorded, no matter how long that takes”—was not accompanied by any term or label whatsoever.

This comparative analytic strategy (and our approach to analysis more broadly as described in strategy #7, below) is analogous to the process of reciprocal translation —a technique first introduced for meta-ethnography by Noblit and Hare [ 27 ] that has since been recognized as a common element in a variety of qualitative metasynthesis approaches [ 28 ]. Reciprocal translation, taken broadly, involves making sense of a study’s findings in terms of the findings of the other studies included in the review. In practice, it has been operationalized in different ways. Melendez-Torres and colleagues developed a typology from their review of the metasynthesis literature, describing four overlapping categories of specific operations undertaken in reciprocal translation: visual representation, key paper integration, data reduction and thematic extraction, and line-by-line coding [ 28 ]. The approaches suggested in both strategies #6 and #7, with their emphasis on constant comparison, appear to fall within the line-by-line coding category.

Generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations

The analysis in a systematic methods overview must support its more general objective, which we suggested above is often to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a chosen methods topic. In our experience, this involves describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Furthermore, any interpretative analysis required may entail reaching different levels of abstraction, depending on the more specific objectives of the review. For example, in the overview on sampling [ 18 ], we aimed to produce a comparative analysis of how multiple sampling-related topics were treated differently within and among different qualitative research traditions. To promote credibility of the review, however, not only should one seek a qualitative analytic approach that facilitates reaching varying levels of abstraction but that approach must also ensure that abstract interpretations are supported and justified by the source data and not solely the product of the analyst’s speculative thinking.

Principle #7:

Considering the qualitative nature of the analysis required in systematic methods overviews, it is important to select an analytic method whose interpretations can be verified as being consistent with the literature selected, regardless of the level of abstraction reached.

Strategy #7:

We suggest employing the constant comparative method of analysis [ 29 ] because it supports developing and verifying analytic links to the source data throughout progressively interpretive or abstract levels. In applying this approach, we advise a rigorous approach, documenting how supportive quotes or references to the original texts are carried forward in the successive steps of analysis to allow for easy verification.

The analytic approach used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] comprised four explicit steps, progressing in level of abstraction—data abstraction, matrices, narrative summaries, and final analytic conclusions (Fig.  2 ). While we have positioned data abstraction as the second stage of the generic review process (prior to Analysis), above, we also considered it as an initial step of analysis in the sampling overview for several reasons. First, it involved a process of constant comparisons and iterative decision-making about the fields to add or define during development and modification of the abstraction form, through which we established the range of concepts to be addressed in the review. At the same time, abstraction involved continuous analytic decisions about what textual quotes (ranging in size from short phrases to numerous paragraphs) to record in the fields thus created. This constant comparative process was analogous to open coding in which textual data from publications was compared to conceptual fields (equivalent to codes) or to other instances of data previously abstracted when constructing definitions to optimize their fit with the overall literature as described in strategy #6. Finally, in the data abstraction step, we also recorded our first interpretive thoughts in dedicated fields, providing initial material for the more abstract analytic steps.

Summary of progressive steps of analysis used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In the second step of the analysis, we constructed topic-specific matrices , or tables, by copying relevant quotes from abstraction forms into the appropriate cells of matrices (for the complete set of analytic matrices developed in the sampling review, see Additional file 1 (matrices 3 to 10)). Each matrix ranged from one to five pages; row headings, nested three-deep, identified the methodological tradition, author, and publication, respectively; and column headings identified the concepts, which corresponded to abstraction fields. Matrices thus allowed us to make further comparisons across methodological traditions, and between authors within a tradition. In the third step of analysis, we recorded our comparative observations as narrative summaries , in which we used illustrative quotes more sparingly. In the final step, we developed analytic conclusions based on the narrative summaries about the sampling-related concepts within each methodological tradition for which clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness of the available guidance appeared to be lacking. Higher levels of analysis thus built logically from the lower levels, enabling us to easily verify analytic conclusions by tracing the support for claims by comparing the original text of publications reviewed.

Integrative versus interpretive methods overviews

The analytic product of systematic methods overviews is comparable to qualitative evidence syntheses, since both involve describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Most qualitative synthesis approaches strive to produce new conceptual understandings that vary in level of interpretation. Dixon-Woods and colleagues [ 30 ] elaborate on a useful distinction, originating from Noblit and Hare [ 27 ], between integrative and interpretive reviews. Integrative reviews focus on summarizing available primary data and involve using largely secure and well defined concepts to do so; definitions are used from an early stage to specify categories for abstraction (or coding) of data, which in turn supports their aggregation; they do not seek as their primary focus to develop or specify new concepts, although they may achieve some theoretical or interpretive functions. For interpretive reviews, meanwhile, the main focus is to develop new concepts and theories that integrate them, with the implication that the concepts developed become fully defined towards the end of the analysis. These two forms are not completely distinct, and “every integrative synthesis will include elements of interpretation, and every interpretive synthesis will include elements of aggregation of data” [ 30 ].

The example methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] could be classified as predominantly integrative because its primary goal was to aggregate influential authors’ ideas on sampling-related concepts; there were also, however, elements of interpretive synthesis since it aimed to develop new ideas about where clarity in guidance on certain sampling-related topics is lacking, and definitions for some concepts were flexible and not fixed until late in the review. We suggest that most systematic methods overviews will be classifiable as predominantly integrative (aggregative). Nevertheless, more highly interpretive methods overviews are also quite possible—for example, when the review objective is to provide a highly critical analysis for the purpose of generating new methodological guidance. In such cases, reviewers may need to sample more deeply (see strategy #4), specifically by selecting empirical research reports (i.e., to go beyond dominant or influential ideas in the methods literature) that are likely to feature innovations or instructive lessons in employing a given method.

In this paper, we have outlined tentative guidance in the form of seven principles and strategies on how to conduct systematic methods overviews, a review type in which methods-relevant literature is systematically analyzed with the aim of offering clarity and enhancing collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic. Our proposals include strategies for delimiting the set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology, and generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations. We hope the suggestions proposed will be useful to others undertaking reviews on methods topics in future.

As far as we are aware, this is the first published source of concrete guidance for conducting this type of review. It is important to note that our primary objective was to initiate methodological discussion by stimulating reflection on what rigorous methods for this type of review should look like, leaving the development of more complete guidance to future work. While derived from the experience of reviewing a single qualitative methods topic, we believe the principles and strategies provided are generalizable to overviews of both qualitative and quantitative methods topics alike. However, it is expected that additional challenges and insights for conducting such reviews have yet to be defined. Thus, we propose that next steps for developing more definitive guidance should involve an attempt to collect and integrate other reviewers’ perspectives and experiences in conducting systematic methods overviews on a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methods topics. Formalized guidance and standards would improve the quality of future methods overviews, something we believe has important implications for advancing qualitative and quantitative methodology. When undertaken to a high standard, rigorous critical evaluations of the available methods guidance have significant potential to make implicit controversies explicit, and improve the clarity and precision of our understandings of problematic qualitative or quantitative methods issues.

A review process central to most types of rigorous reviews of empirical studies, which we did not explicitly address in a separate review step above, is quality appraisal . The reason we have not treated this as a separate step stems from the different objectives of the primary publications included in overviews of the methods literature (i.e., providing methodological guidance) compared to the primary publications included in the other established review types (i.e., reporting findings from single empirical studies). This is not to say that appraising quality of the methods literature is not an important concern for systematic methods overviews. Rather, appraisal is much more integral to (and difficult to separate from) the analysis step, in which we advocate appraising clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness—the quality appraisal criteria that we suggest are appropriate for the methods literature. As a second important difference regarding appraisal, we currently advocate appraising the aforementioned aspects at the level of the literature in aggregate rather than at the level of individual publications. One reason for this is that methods guidance from individual publications generally builds on previous literature, and thus we feel that ahistorical judgments about comprehensiveness of single publications lack relevance and utility. Additionally, while different methods authors may express themselves less clearly than others, their guidance can nonetheless be highly influential and useful, and should therefore not be downgraded or ignored based on considerations of clarity—which raises questions about the alternative uses that quality appraisals of individual publications might have. Finally, legitimate variability in the perspectives that methods authors wish to emphasize, and the levels of generality at which they write about methods, makes critiquing individual publications based on the criterion of clarity a complex and potentially problematic endeavor that is beyond the scope of this paper to address. By appraising the current state of the literature at a holistic level, reviewers stand to identify important gaps in understanding that represent valuable opportunities for further methodological development.

To summarize, the principles and strategies provided here may be useful to those seeking to undertake their own systematic methods overview. Additional work is needed, however, to establish guidance that is comprehensive by comparing the experiences from conducting a variety of methods overviews on a range of methods topics. Efforts that further advance standards for systematic methods overviews have the potential to promote high-quality critical evaluations that produce conceptually clear and unified understandings of problematic methods topics, thereby accelerating the advance of research methodology.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions.

SJG wrote the first draft of this article, with CC contributing to drafting. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript. All authors except CC (deceased) approved the final draft. SJG, CC, KAB, and JP were involved in developing methods for the systematic methods overview on sampling.

Authors’ information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, additional file.

Submitted: Analysis_matrices. (DOC 330 kb)

Cathy Charles is deceased

Contributor Information

Stephen J. Gentles, Email: moc.liamg@seltnegevets .

David B. Nicholas, Email: ac.yraglacu@salohcin .

Jenny Ploeg, Email: ac.retsamcm@jgeolp .

K. Ann McKibbon, Email: ac.retsamcm@bikcm .

• Open access
• Published: 25 July 2024

Strategies to strengthen the resilience of primary health care in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

• Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad 1 ,
• Mahnaz Afshari 2 ,
• Parvaneh Isfahani 3 ,
• Farahnaz Ezzati 4 ,
• Mahdi Abbasi 4 ,
• Shahrzad Akhavan Farahani 4 ,
• Maryam Zahmatkesh 5 &
• Leila Eslambolchi 4  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  841 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

52 Accesses

Metrics details

Primary Health Care (PHC) systems are pivotal in delivering essential health services during crises, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. With varied global strategies to reinforce PHC systems, this scoping review consolidates these efforts, identifying and categorizing key resilience-building strategies.

Adopting Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, this study synthesized literature across five databases and Google Scholar, encompassing studies up to December 31st, 2022. We focused on English and Persian studies that addressed interventions to strengthen PHC amidst COVID-19. Data were analyzed through thematic framework analysis employing MAXQDA 10 software.

Our review encapsulated 167 studies from 48 countries, revealing 194 interventions to strengthen PHC resilience, categorized into governance and leadership, financing, workforce, infrastructures, information systems, and service delivery. Notable strategies included telemedicine, workforce training, psychological support, and enhanced health information systems. The diversity of the interventions reflects a robust global response, emphasizing the adaptability of strategies across different health systems.

Conclusions

The study underscored the need for well-resourced, managed, and adaptable PHC systems, capable of maintaining continuity in health services during emergencies. The identified interventions suggested a roadmap for integrating resilience into PHC, essential for global health security. This collective knowledge offered a strategic framework to enhance PHC systems' readiness for future health challenges, contributing to the overall sustainability and effectiveness of global health systems.

Peer Review reports

The health system is a complex network that encompasses individuals, groups, and organizations engaged in policymaking, financing, resource generation, and service provision. These efforts collectively aim to safeguard and enhance people health, meet their expectations, and provide financial protection [ 1 ]. The World Health Organization's (WHO) framework outlines six foundational building blocks for a robust health system: governance and leadership, financing, workforce, infrastructure along with technologies and medicine, information systems, and service delivery. Strengthening these elements is essential for health systems to realize their objectives of advancing and preserving public health [ 2 ].

Effective governance in health systems encompasses the organization of structures, processes, and authority, ensuring resource stewardship and aligning stakeholders’ behaviors with health goals [ 3 ]. Financial mechanisms are designed to provide health services without imposing financial hardship, achieved through strategic fund collection, management and allocation [ 4 , 5 ]. An equitable, competent, and well-distributed health workforce is crucial in delivering healthcare services and fulfilling health system objectives [ 2 ]. Access to vital medical supplies, technologies, and medicines is a cornerstone of effective health services, while health information systems play a pivotal role in generating, processing, and utilizing health data, informing policy decisions [ 2 , 5 ]. Collectively, these components interact to offer quality health services that are safe, effective, timely, affordable, and patient-centered [ 2 ]

The WHO, at the 1978 Alma-Ata conference, introduced primary health care (PHC) as the fundamental strategy to attain global health equity [ 6 ]. Subsequent declarations, such as the one in Astana in 2018, have reaffirmed the pivotal role of PHC in delivering high-quality health care for all [ 7 ]. PHC represents the first level of contact within the health system, offering comprehensive, accessible, community-based care that is culturally sensitive and supported by appropriate technology [ 8 ]. Essential care through PHC encompasses health education, proper nutrition, access to clean water and sanitation, maternal and child healthcare, immunizations, treatment of common diseases, and the provision of essential drugs [ 6 ]. PHC aims to provide protective, preventive, curative, and rehabilitative services that are as close to the community as possible [ 9 ].

Global health systems, however, have faced significant disruptions from various shocks and crises [ 10 ], with the COVID-19 pandemic being a recent and profound example. The pandemic has stressed health systems worldwide, infecting over 775 million and claiming more than 7.04 million lives as of April 13th, 2024 [ 11 ]. Despite the pandemic highlighting the critical role of hospitals and intensive care, it also revealed the limitations of specialized medicine when not complemented by a robust PHC system [ 12 ].

The pandemic brought to light the vulnerabilities of PHC systems, noting a significant decrease in the use of primary care for non-emergency conditions. Routine health services, including immunizations, prenatal care, and chronic disease management, were severely impacted [ 13 ]. The challenges—quarantine restrictions, fears of infection, staffing and resource shortages, suspended non-emergency services, and financial barriers—reduced essential service utilization [ 14 ]. This led to an avoidance of healthcare, further exacerbating health inequalities and emphasizing the need for more resilient PHC systems [ 15 , 16 , 17 ].

Resilient PHC systems are designed to predict, prevent, prepare, absorb, adapt, and transform when facing crises, ensuring the continuity of routine health services [ 18 ]. Investing in the development of such systems can not only enhance crisis response but also foster post-crisis transformation and improvement. This study focuses on identifying global interventions and strategies to cultivate resilient PHC systems, aiding policymakers and managers in making informed decisions in times of crisis.

In 2023, we conducted a scoping review to collect and synthesize evidence from a broad spectrum of studies addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. A scoping review allows for the assessment of literature's volume, nature, and comprehensiveness, and is uniquely inclusive of both peer-reviewed articles and gray literature—such as reports, white papers, and policy documents. Unlike systematic reviews, it typically does not require a quality assessment of the included literature, making it well-suited for rapidly gathering a wide scope of evidence [ 19 ]. Our goal was to uncover the breadth of solutions aimed at bolstering the resilience of the PHC system throughout the COVID-19 crisis. The outcomes of this review are intended to inform the development of a model that ensures the PHC system's ability to continue delivering not just emergency services but also essential care during times of crisis.

We employed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, which consists of six steps: formulating the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting the pertinent studies, extracting data, synthesizing and reporting the findings, and, where applicable, consulting with stakeholders to inform and validate the results [ 20 ]. This comprehensive approach is designed to capture a wide range of interventions and strategies, with the ultimate aim of crafting a robust PHC system that can withstand the pressures of a global health emergency

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Our scoping review was guided by the central question: "Which strategies and interventions have been implemented to enhance the resilience of primary healthcare systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?" This question aimed to capture a comprehensive array of responses to understand the full scope of resilience-building activities within PHC systems.

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

To ensure a thorough review, we conducted systematic searches across multiple databases, specifically targeting literature up to December 31st, 2022. The databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Magiran, and SID. We also leveraged the expansive reach of Google Scholar. Our search strategy incorporated a bilingual approach, utilizing both English and Persian keywords that encompassed "PHC," "resilience," "strategies," and "policies," along with the logical operators AND/OR to refine the search. Additionally, we employed Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to enhance the precision of our search. The results were meticulously organized and managed using the Endnote X8 citation manager, facilitating the systematic selection and review of pertinent literature.

Stage 3: selecting studies

In the third stage, we meticulously vetted our search results to exclude duplicate entries by comparing bibliographic details such as titles, authors, publication dates, and journal names. This task was performed independently by two of our authors, LE and MA, who rigorously screened titles and abstracts. Discrepancies encountered during this process were brought to the attention of a third author, AMM, for resolution through consensus.

Subsequently, full-text articles were evaluated by four team members—LE, MA, PI, and SHZ—to ascertain their relevance to our research question. The selection hinged on identifying articles that discussed strategies aimed at bolstering the resilience of PHC systems amidst the COVID-19 pandemic Table 1 .

We have articulated the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that guided our selection process in Table 2 , ensuring transparency and replicability of our review methodology

Stage 4: charting the data

Data extraction was conducted by a team of six researchers (LE, MA, PI, MA, FE, and SHZ), utilizing a structured data extraction form. For each selected study, we collated details including the article title, the first author’s name, the year of publication, the country where the study was conducted, the employed research methodology, the sample size, the type of document, and the PHC strengthening strategies described.

In pursuit of maintaining rigorous credibility in our study, we adopted a dual-review process. Each article was independently reviewed by pairs of researchers to mitigate bias and ensure a thorough analysis. Discrepancies between reviewers were addressed through discussion to reach consensus. In instances where consensus could not be reached, the matter was escalated to a third, neutral reviewer. Additionally, to guarantee thoroughness, either LE or MA conducted a final review of the complete data extraction for each study.

Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results

In this stage, authors LE, MZ, and MA worked independently to synthesize the data derived from the selected studies. Differences in interpretation were collaboratively discussed until a consensus was reached, with AMM providing arbitration where required.

We employed a framework thematic analysis, underpinned by the WHO's health system building blocks model, to structure our findings. This model categorizes health system components into six foundational elements: governance and leadership; health financing; health workforce; medical products, vaccines, and technologies; health information systems; and service delivery [ 2 ]. Using MAXQDA 10 software, we coded the identified PHC strengthening strategies within these six thematic areas.

Summary of search results and study selection

In total, 4315 articles were found by initial search. After removing 397 duplicates, 3918 titles and abstracts were screened and 3606 irrelevant ones were deleted. Finally, 167 articles of 312 reviewed full texts were included in data synthesis (Fig.  1 ). Main characteristics of included studies are presented in Appendix 1.

PRISMA Flowchart of search process and results

Characteristics of studies

These studies were published in 2020 (18.6%), 2021 (36.5%) and 2022 (44.9%). They were conducted in 48 countries, mostly in the US (39 studies), the UK (16 studies), Canada (11 studies), Iran (10 studies) and Brazil (7 studies) as shown in Fig.  2 .

Distribution of reviewed studies by country

Although the majority of the reviewed publications were original articles (55.1 %) and review papers (21 %), other types of documents such as reports, policy briefs, analysis, etc., were also included in this review (Fig.  3 ).

An overview of the publication types

Strengthening interventions to build a resilient PHC system

In total, 194 interventions were identified for strengthening the resilience of PHC systems to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. They were grouped into six themes of PHC governance and leadership (46 interventions), PHC financing (21 interventions), PHC workforce (37 interventions), PHC infrastructures, equipment, medicines and vaccines (30 interventions), PHC information system (21 interventions) and PHC service delivery (39 interventions). These strategies are shown in Table 3 .

This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize the range of interventions employed globally to strengthen the resilience of primary healthcare (PHC) systems in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our comprehensive search yielded 194 distinct interventions across 48 countries, affirming the significant international efforts to sustain healthcare services during this unprecedented crisis. These interventions have been classified according to the WHO’s six building block model of health systems, providing a framework for analyzing their breadth and depth. This review complements and expands upon the findings from Pradhan et al., who identified 28 interventions specifically within low and middle-income countries, signaling the universality of the challenge and the myriad of innovative responses it has provoked globally [ 178 ].

The review highlights the critical role of governance and leadership in PHC resilience. Effective organizational structure changes, legal reforms, and policy development were crucial in creating adaptive healthcare systems capable of meeting the dynamic challenges posed by the pandemic. These findings resonate with the two strategies of effective leadership and coordination emphasized by Pradhan et al. (2023), and underscore the need for clear vision, evidence-based policy, and active community engagement in governance [ 178 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges for PHC systems globally. A pivotal response to these challenges was the active involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process. This inclusivity spanned across the spectrum of general practitioners, health professionals, health managers, and patients. By engaging these vital contributors, it became possible to address their specific needs and to design and implement people-centered services effectively [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

The development and implementation of collaborative, evidence-informed policies and national healthcare plans were imperative. Such strategies required robust leadership, bolstered by political commitment, to ensure that the necessary changes could be enacted swiftly and efficiently [ 41 , 45 ]. Leaders within the health system were called upon to foster an environment of good governance. This entailed promoting increased participation from all sectors of the healthcare community, enhancing transparency in decision-making processes, and upholding the principles of legitimacy, accountability, and responsibility within the health system [ 10 ]. The collective aim was to create a more resilient, responsive, and equitable healthcare system in the face of the pandemic's demands.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments were compelled to implement new laws and regulations. These were designed to address a range of issues from professional accreditation and ethical concerns to supporting the families of healthcare workers. Additionally, these legal frameworks facilitated the integration of emerging services such as telemedicine into the healthcare system, ensuring that these services were regulated and standardized [ 38 , 40 , 61 ]. A key aspect of managing the pandemic was the establishment of effective and transparent communication systems for patients, public health authorities, and the healthcare system at large [ 60 , 61 ]. To disseminate vital information regarding the pandemic, vaccination programs, and healthcare services, authorities leveraged various channels. Public media, local online platforms, and neighborhood networks were instrumental in keeping the public informed about the ongoing situation and available services [ 53 , 60 , 86 ]. For health professionals, digital communication tools such as emails and WhatsApp groups, as well as regular meetings, were utilized to distribute clinical guidelines, government directives, and to address any queries they might have had. This ensured that healthcare workers were kept up-to-date with the evolving landscape of the pandemic and could adapt their practices accordingly [ 60 , 144 ].

Healthcare facilities function as complex socio-technical entities, combining multiple specialties and adapting to the ever-changing landscape of healthcare needs and environments [ 179 ]. To navigate this dynamic, policy makers must take into account an array of determinants—political, economic, social, and environmental—that influence health outcomes. Effective management of a health crisis necessitates robust collaboration across various sectors, including government bodies, public health organizations, primary healthcare systems, and hospitals. Such collaboration is not only pivotal during crisis management but also during the development of preparedness plans [ 63 ]. Within the health system, horizontal collaboration among departments and vertical collaboration between the Ministry of Health and other governmental departments are vital. These cooperative efforts are key to reinforce the resilience of the primary healthcare system. Moreover, a strong alliance between national pandemic response teams and primary healthcare authorities is essential to identifying and resolving issues within the PHC system [ 29 ]. On an international scale, collaborations and communications are integral to the procurement of essential medical supplies, such as medicines, equipment, and vaccines. These international partnerships are fundamental to ensuring that health systems remain equipped to face health emergencies [ 63 ].

To ensure the PHC system's preparedness and response capacity was at its best, regular and effective monitoring and evaluation programs were put in place. These included rigorous quarterly stress tests at the district level, which scrutinized the infrastructure and technology to pinpoint the system’s strengths and areas for improvement [ 43 ]. Furthermore, clinical audits were conducted to assess the structure, processes, and outcomes of healthcare programs, thereby enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the services provided [ 63 ]. These evaluation measures were crucial for maintaining a high standard of care and for adapting to the ever-evolving challenges faced by the PHC system.

Financial strategies played a critical role in enabling access to essential health services without imposing undue financial hardship. Various revenue-raising, pooling, and purchasing strategies were implemented to expand PHC financing during the pandemic, illustrating the multifaceted approach needed to sustain healthcare operations under strained circumstances [ 9 , 19 ].

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government took decisive action to bolster the country's healthcare infrastructure. By enhancing the financial capacity of states, the government was able to inject more funds into the Primary Health Care (PHC) system. This influx of resources made it possible to introduce schemes providing free medications and diagnostic services [ 50 ]. The benefits of increased financial resources were also felt beyond India's borders, enabling the compensation of health services in various forms. In Greece, it facilitated the monitoring and treatment of COVID-19 through in-person, home-based, and remote health services provided by physicians in private practice. Similarly, in Iran, the financial boost supported the acquisition of basic and para-clinical services from the private sector [ 21 , 65 ]. These measures reflect a broader international effort to adapt and sustain health services during a global health crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a formidable challenge to the PHC workforce worldwide. Healthcare workers were subjected to overwhelming workloads and faced significant threats to both their physical and mental well-being. To build resilience in the face of this crisis, a suite of interventions was implemented. These included recruitment strategies, training and development programs, enhanced teamwork, improved protective measures, comprehensive performance appraisals, and appropriate compensation mechanisms, as documented in Table 3 . To address staffing needs within PHC centers, a range of professionals including general practitioners, nurses, community health workers, and technical staff were either newly employed or redeployed from other healthcare facilities [ 63 ]. Expert practitioners were positioned on the frontlines, providing both in-person services and telephone consultations, acting as gatekeepers in the health system [ 49 , 63 ]. Support staff with technological expertise played a crucial role as well, assisting patients in navigating patient portals, utilizing new digital services, and conducting video visits [ 102 ]. Furthermore, the acute shortage of healthcare workers was mitigated by recruiting individuals who were retired, not currently practicing, or in training as students, as well as by enlisting volunteers. This strategy was key to bolstering the workforce and ensuring continuity of care during the pandemic [ 109 ].

During the pandemic, new training programs were developed to prepare healthcare staff for the evolving demands of their roles. These comprehensive courses covered a wide array of critical topics, including the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), the operation of ventilators, patient safety protocols, infection prevention, teamwork, problem-solving, self-care techniques, mental health support, strategies for managing stress, navigating and applying reliable web-based information, emergency response tactics, telemedicine, and direct care for COVID-19 patients [ 74 , 95 , 100 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 117 ].

Acknowledging the psychological and professional pressures faced by the primary healthcare workforce, health managers took active measures to safeguard both the physical and mental well-being of their employees during this challenging period [ 124 ]. Efforts to protect physical health included monitoring health status, ensuring vaccination against COVID-19, and providing adequate PPE [ 63 , 72 ]. To address mental health, a variety of interventions were deployed to mitigate anxiety and related issues among frontline workers. In Egypt, for instance, healthcare workers benefited from psychotherapy services and adaptable work schedules to alleviate stress [ 126 ]. Singapore employed complementary strategies, such as yoga, meditation, and the encouragement of religious practices, to promote relaxation among staff [ 133 ]. In the United States, the Wellness Hub application was utilized as a tool for employees to enhance their mental health [ 132 ]. In addition to health and wellness initiatives, there were financial incentives aimed at motivating employees. Payment protocols were revised, and new incentives, including scholarship opportunities and career development programs, were introduced to foster job satisfaction and motivation among healthcare workers [ 63 ].

The resilience of PHC systems during the pandemic hinged on several key improvements. Enhancing health facilities, supplying medicines and diagnostic kits, distributing vaccines, providing medical equipment, and building robust digital infrastructure were all fundamental elements that contributed to the strength of PHC systems, as outlined in Table 3 . Safe and accessible primary healthcare was facilitated through various means. Wheelchair routes were created for patients to ensure their mobility within healthcare facilities. , dedicated COVID-19 clinics were established, mass vaccination centers were opened to expedite immunization, and mobile screening stations were launched to extend testing capabilities [ 23 , 33 , 63 , 140 ].

In Iran, the distribution and availability of basic medicines were managed in collaboration with the Food and Drug Organization, ensuring that essential medications reached those in need [ 89 ]. During the outbreak, personal protective equipment (PPE) was among the most critical supplies. Access to PPE was prioritized, particularly for vulnerable groups and healthcare workers, to provide a layer of safety against the virus [ 63 ]. Vaccines were made available at no cost, with governments taking active measures to monitor their safety and side effects, to enhance their quality, and to secure international approvals. Furthermore, effective communication strategies were employed to keep the public informed about vaccine-related developments [ 32 , 83 ].

These comprehensive efforts underscored the commitment to maintaining a resilient PHC system in the face of a global health every individual in the community could access healthcare services. To facilitate this, free high-speed Wi-Fi hotspots were established, enabling patients to engage in video consultations and utilize a range of e-services without the barrier of internet costs crisis. Significant enhancements were made to the digital infrastructure. This expansion was critical in ensuring that [ 30 , 54 ]. Complementing these measures, a variety of digital health tools were deployed to further modernize care delivery. Countries like Nigeria and Germany, for instance, saw the introduction of portable electrocardiograms and telemedical stethoscopes. These innovations allowed for more comprehensive remote assessments and diagnostics, helping to bridge the gap between traditional in-person consultations and the emerging needs for telemedicine [ 141 , 180 ].

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, targeted interventions were implemented to bolster information systems and research efforts, as outlined in Table 3 . Key among these was the advancement of a modern, secure public health information system to ensure access to health data was not only reliable and timely but also transparent and accurate [ 33 , 45 , 49 ]. The "Open Notes" initiative in the United States exemplified this effort, guaranteeing patient access to, and editorial control over, their health records [ 141 ]. Management strategies also promoted the "one-health" approach, facilitating the exchange of health data across various departments and sectors to enhance public health outcomes [ 10 ].

In addition to these information system upgrades, active patient surveillance and early warning systems were instituted in collaboration with public health agencies. These systems played a pivotal role in detecting outbreaks, providing precise reports on the incidents, characterizing the epidemiology of pathogens, tracking their spread, and evaluating the efficacy of control strategies. They were instrumental in pinpointing areas of concern, informing smart lockdowns, and improving contact tracing methods [ 33 , 63 , 72 ]. The reinforcement of these surveillance and warning systems had a profound impact on shaping and implementing a responsive strategy to the health crisis [ 10 ].

To further reinforce the response to the pandemic, enhancing primary healthcare (PHC) research capacity became crucial. This enabled healthcare professionals and policymakers to discern both facilitators and barriers within the system and to devise fitting strategies to address emerging challenges. To this end, formal advisory groups and multidisciplinary expert panels, which included specialists from epidemiology, clinical services, social care, sociology, policy-making, and management, were convened. These groups harnessed the best available evidence to inform decision-making processes [ 30 ]. Consequently, research units were established to carry out regular telephone surveys and to collect data on effective practices, as well as new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches [ 31 , 89 ]. The valuable insights gained from these research endeavors were then disseminated through trusted channels to both the public and policymakers, ensuring informed decisions at all levels [ 36 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for the swift integration of telemedicine into healthcare systems globally. This period saw healthcare providers leverage telecommunication technologies to offer an array of remote services, addressing medical needs such as consultations, diagnosis, monitoring, and prescriptions. This transition was instrumental in ensuring care continuity and mitigating infection risks for both patients and healthcare workers, highlighting an innovative evolution in healthcare delivery [ 170 , 181 ].

Countries adapted to this new model of healthcare with varied applications: Armenia established telephone follow-ups and video consultations for remote patient care, while e-pharmacies and mobile health tools provided immediate access to medical information and services [ 29 ]. In France and the United States, tele-mental health services and online group support became a means to support healthy living during the pandemic [ 147 , 158 ] . New Zealand introduced the Aroha chatbot, an initiative to assist with mental health management [ 139 ].

The implementation and effectiveness of these telehealth services were not limited by economic barriers, as underscored by Pradhan et al. (2023), who noted the key role of telemedicine in low and middle-income countries. These countries embraced the technology to maintain health service operations, proving its global applicability and utility [ 178 ]. The widespread adoption of telemedicine, therefore, represents a significant and perhaps lasting shift in healthcare practice, one that has redefined patient care in the face of a global health crisis and may continue to shape the future of healthcare delivery [ 170 , 178 , 181 ].

The study highlighted PHC strengthening strategies in COVID-19 time . Notably, the adaptations and reforms spanned across governance, financing, workforce management, information system, infrastructural readiness, and service delivery enhancements. These interventions collectively contributed to the robustness of health systems against the sudden surge in demand and the multifaceted challenges imposed by the pandemic and resulted.

Significantly, the findings have broader implications for health policy and system design worldwide. The pandemic has highlighted the critical need for resilient health systems that are capable of not only responding to health emergencies but also maintaining continuity in essential services. The strategies documented in this review serve as a template for countries to fortify their health systems by embedding resilience into their PHC frameworks (Fig.  4 ). Future health crises can be better managed by learning from these evidenced responses, which emphasize the necessity of integrated, well-supported, and dynamically adaptable health care structures.

A model for strengthening the resilience of the primary health care system

Looking ahead, realist reviews could play a pivotal role in refining PHC resilience strategies. By understanding the context in which specific interventions succeed or fail, realist reviews can help policymakers and practitioners design more effective health system reforms, as echoed in the need for evidence-based planning in health system governance [ 9 ] ​​. These reviews offer a methodological advantage by focusing on the causality between interventions and outcomes, aligning with the importance of effective health system leadership and management [ 50 , 182 ] ​​. They take into account the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors, thus providing a nuanced understanding that is crucial for tailoring interventions to meet local needs effectively [ 28 , 86 ] ​​, ultimately leading to more sustainable health systems globally. This shift towards a more analytical and context-sensitive approach in evaluating health interventions, as supported by WHO's framework for action [ 2 , 10 ] ​​, will be crucial for developing strategies that are not only effective in theory but also practical and sustainable in diverse real-world settings.

Limitations and future research

In our comprehensive scoping review, we analyzed 167 articles out of a dataset of 4,315, classifying 194 interventions that build resilience in primary healthcare systems across the globe in response to pandemics like COVID-19. While the review's extensive search provides a sweeping overview of various strategies, it may not capture the full diversity of interventions across all regions and economies. Future research should focus on meta-analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in greater detail and employ qualitative studies to delve into the specific challenges and successes, thus gaining a more nuanced understanding of the context. As the review includes articles only up to December 31, 2022, it may overlook more recent studies. Regular updates, a broader linguistic range, and the inclusion of a more diverse array of databases are recommended to maintain relevance and expand the breadth of literature, ultimately guiding more focused research that could significantly enhance the resilience of PHC systems worldwide.

Availability of data and materials

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

Abbreviations

Primary Health Care

World Health Organization

Sustainable Development Goals

Universal Health Coverage

Personal Protective Equipment

General Practitioner

Mosadeghrad AM. A practical model for health policy making and analysis. Payesh. 2022;21(1):7–24 ([in Persian]).

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Everybody’s Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes. WHO’s Framework for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.

Google Scholar  

Khosravi MF, Mosadeghrad AM, Arab M. Health System Governance Evaluation: A Scoping Review. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(2):265.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mosadeghrad AM, Abbasi M, Abbasi M, Heidari M. Sustainable health financing methods in developing countries: a scoping review. J of School Public Health Inst Public Health Res. 2023;20(4):358–78 ([in Persian]).

Mosadeghrad AM. Health strengthening plan, a supplement to Iran health transformation plan: letter to the editor. Tehran Univ Med J. 2019;77(8):537–8 ([in Persian]).

World Health Organization. Declaration of alma-ata. Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe; 1978. p. 1–4.

Rasanathan K, Evans TG. Primary health care, the Declaration of Astana and COVID-19. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(11):801.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization, UNICEF. Operational framework for primary health care: transforming vision into action. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund; 2020.

Mosadeghrad AM, Heydari M, Esfahani P. Primary health care strengthening strategies in Iran: a realistic review. J School Public Health Inst Public Health Res. 2022;19(3):237–58 ([in Persian]).

Sagan A, Webb E, Azzopardi-Muscat N, de la Mata I, McKee M, Figueras J. Health systems resilience during COVID-19: Lessons for building back better. Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization; 2021.

World Health Organization, Coronavirus (COVID-19) map. Available at https://covid19.who.int/ /. Access date 14/04/2024.

Plagg B, Piccoliori G, Oschmann J, Engl A, Eisendle K. Primary health care and hospital management during COVID-19: lessons from lombardy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021:3987–92.

World Health Organization. Pulse survey on continuity of essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic: interim report, 27 August 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-EHS_continuity-survey-2020.1 .

Mosadeghrad AM, Jajarmizadeh A. Continuity of essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tehran Univ Med J. 2021;79(10):831–2 ([in Persian]).

Splinter MJ, Velek P, Ikram MK, Kieboom BC, Peeters RP, Bindels PJ, Ikram MA, Wolters FJ, Leening MJ, de Schepper EI, Licher S. Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2021;18(11):e1003854.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wangmo S, Sarkar S, Islam T, Rahman MH, Landry M. Maintaining essential health services during the pandemic in Bangladesh: the role of primary health care supported by routine health information system. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2021;10(3):93.

Kumpunen S, Webb E, Permanand G, Zheleznyakov E, Edwards N, van Ginneken E, Jakab M. Transformations in the landscape of primary health care during COVID-19: Themes from the European region. Health Policy. 2022;126(5):391–7.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ezzati F, Mosadeghrad AM, Jaafaripooyan E. Resiliency of the Iranian healthcare facilities against the Covid-19 pandemic: challenges and solutions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(207):1–16.

Mosadeghrad AM, Isfahani P, Eslambolchi L, Zahmatkesh M, Afshari M. Strategies to strengthen a climate-resilient health system: a scoping review. Global Health. 2023;19(1):62.

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

Akrami F, Riazi-Isfahani S, Mahdavi hezaveh A, Ghanbari Motlagh A, Najmi M, Afkar M, et al. Iran’s Status of NCDs Prevention and Management Services during COVID-19 Pandemic at PHC Level. SJKU. 2021;26(5):50–68.

Etienne CF, Fitzgerald J, Almeida G, Birmingham ME, Brana M, Bascolo E, Cid C, Pescetto C. COVID-19: transformative actions for more equitable, resilient, sustainable societies and health systems in the Americas. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(8):e003509.

Tabrizi JS, Raeisi A, Namaki S. Primary health care and COVID-19 Pandemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Depict Health. 2022;13(Suppl 1):S1-10.

Danhieux K, Buffel V, Pairon A, Benkheil A, Remmen R, Wouters E, Van Olmen J. The impact of COVID-19 on chronic care according to providers: a qualitative study among primary care practices in Belgium. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:1–6.

Goodyear-Smith F, Kidd M, Oseni TIA, Nashat N, Mash R, Akman M, Phillips RL, van Weel C. Internationalexamples of primary care COVID-19 preparedness and response: a comparison of four countries. Fam MedCommunity Health. 2022;10(2):e001608.

Kinder K, Bazemore A, Taylor M, Mannie C, Strydom S, George J, Goodyear-Smith F. Integrating primary care and public health to enhance response to a pandemic. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e27.

De Maeseneer J. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e73.

Westfall JM, Liaw W, Griswold K, Stange K, Green LA, Phillips R, Bazemore A, Jaén CR, Hughes LS, DeVoe J, Gullett H. Uniting public health and primary care for healthy communities in the COVID-19 era and beyond. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(Supplement):S203-9.

Johansen AS, Shriwise A, Lopez-Acuna D, Vracko P. Strengthening the primary health care response to COVID-19: an operational tool for policymakers. Prim Health Care ResDev. 2021;22:e81.

Reath J, Lau P, Lo W, Trankle S, Brooks M, Shahab Y, Abbott P. Strengthening learning and research in health equity–opportunities for university departments of primary health care and general practice. Aust J Prim Health. 2022;29(2):131–6.

Ferenčina J, Tomšič V. COVID-19 clinic as a basis of quality primary health care in the light of the pandemic - an observational study. Med Glas (Zenica). 2022;19(1). https://doi.org/10.17392/1437-21 .

Mosadeghrad AH. Promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake: a letter to editor. Tehran Univ Med Sci J. 2022;80(2):159–60.

Chaiban L, Benyaich A, Yaacoub S, Rawi H, Truppa C, Bardus M. Access to primary and secondary health care services for people living with diabetes and lower-limb amputation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):593.

Džakula A, Banadinović M, Lovrenčić IL, Vajagić M, Dimova A, Rohova M, Minev M, Scintee SG, Vladescu C, Farcasanu D, Robinson S. A comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020. Health Policy. 2022;126(5):456–64.

Ghazi Saeedi M, Tanhapour M. Telemedicine System: A Mandatory Requirement in Today’s World. Payavard. 2022;15(5):490–507.

Ferorelli D, Nardelli L, Spagnolo L, Corradi S, Silvestre M, Misceo F, Marrone M, Zotti F, Mandarelli G, Solarino B, Dell’Erba A. Medical legal aspects of telemedicine in Italy: application fields, professional liability and focus on care services during the COVID-19 health emergency. J Prim CareCommun Health. 2020;11:2150132720985055.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Fulmer T, Reuben DB, Auerbach J, Fick DM, Galambos C, Johnson KS. Actualizing better health and health care for older adults: commentary describes six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. Health Aff. 2021;40(2):219–25.

Hernández Rincón EH, Pimentel González JP, Aramendiz Narváez MF, Araujo Tabares RA, Roa González JM. Description and analysis of primary care-based COVID-19 interventions in Colombia. Medwave. 2021;21(3):e8147.

Giannopoulou I, Tsobanoglou GO. COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and opportunities for the Greek health care system. Irish J Psychol Med. 2020;37(3):226–30.

Chow C, Goh SK, Tan CS, Wu HK, Shahdadpuri R. Enhancing frontline workforce volunteerism through exploration of motivations and impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;1(66):102605.

Alboksmaty A, Kumar S, Parekh R, Aylin P. Management and patient safety of complex elderly patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK—Qualitative assessment. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248387.

Savoy A, Patel H, Shahid U, Offner AD, Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN. Electronic Co-design (ECO-design) Workshop for Increasing Clinician Participation in the Design of Health Services Interventions: Participatory Design Approach. JMIR Hum Fact. 2022;9(3):e37313.

Tumusiime P, Karamagi H, Titi-Ofei R, Amri M, Seydi AB, Kipruto H, Droti B, Zombre S, Yoti Z, Zawaira F, Cabore J. Building health system resilience in the context of primary health care revitalization for attainment of UHC: proceedings from the Fifth Health Sector Directors’ Policy and Planning Meeting for the WHO African Region. BMC Proc. 2020;14:1–8 (BioMed Central).

Atoofi MK, Rezaei N, Kompani F, Shirzad F, Sh D. Requirements of mental health services during the COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review. Iran J Psychiatry Clin Psychol. 2020;26(3):264–79.

Mosadeghrad AM, Taherkhani T, Shojaei S, Jafari M, Mohammadi S, Emamzadeh A, Akhavan S. Strengthening primary health care system resilience in COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. sjsph 2022;20(1):13-24.

Fotokian Z, Mohammadkhah F. Primary health care as a strategy to fight COVID-19 pandemic: letter to the editor. J Isfahan Med School. 2021;39(630):470–4. https://doi.org/10.22122/jims.v39i630.14016 .

Li D, Howe AC, Astier-Peña MP. Primary health care response in the management of pandemics: Learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic. Atención Primaria. 2021;1(53):102226.

Chua AQ, Tan MMJ, Verma M, Han EKL, Hsu LY, Cook AR, et al. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(9):e003317.

Eisele M, Pohontsch NJ, Scherer M. Strategies in primary care to face the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic: an online survey. Front Med. 2021;2(8):613537.

Lamberti-Castronuovo A, Valente M, Barone-Adesi F, Hubloue I, Ragazzoni L. Primary health care disaster preparedness: a review of the literature and the proposal of a new framework. Int J Dis Risk Reduct. 2022;2:103278.

Piché-Renaud PP, Ji C, Farrar DS, Friedman JN, Science M, Kitai I, Burey S, Feldman M, Morris SK. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of routine childhood immunizations in Ontario Canada. Vaccine. 2021;39(31):4373–82.

Saxenian H, Alkenbrack S, Freitas Attaran M, Barcarolo J, Brenzel L, Brooks A, Ekeman E, Griffiths UK, Rozario S, Vande Maele N, Ranson MK. Sustainable financing for Immunization Agenda 2030. Vaccine. 2024;42 Suppl 1:S73-S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.11.037 .

Saso A, Skirrow H, Kampmann B. Impact of COVID-19 on immunization services for maternal and infant vaccines: results of a survey conducted by imprint—the immunising pregnant women and infants network. Vaccines. 2020;8(3):556.

Sagan A, Thomas S, McKee M, Karanikolos M, Azzopardi-Muscat N, de la Mata I, Figueras J, World Health Organization. COVID-19 and health systems resilience: lessons going forwards. Eurohealth. 2020;26(2):20–4.

Celuppi IC, Meirelles BH, Lanzoni GM, Geremia DS, Metelski FK. Management in the care of people with HIV in primary health care in times of the new coronavirus. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2022;1(56):13.

Denis JL, Potvin L, Rochon J, Fournier P, Gauvin L. On redesigning public health in Québec: lessons learned from the pandemic. Can J Public Health= Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 2020;111(6):912.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson G, Windner Z, Dowell A, Toop L, Savage R, Hudson B. Navigating the health system during COVID-19: primary care perspectives on delayed patient care. N Z Med J. 2021;134(1546):17–27 (PMID: 34855730).

Zhang N, Yang S, Jia P. Cultivating resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a socioecological perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2022;4(73):575–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030221-031857 . (Epub 2021 Sep 27 PMID: 34579547).

Al Ghafri T, Al Ajmi F, Al Balushi L, Kurup PM, Al Ghamari A, Al Balushi Z, Al Fahdi F, Al Lawati H, Al Hashmi S, Al Manji A, Al Sharji A. Responses to the pandemic covid-19 in primary health care in oman: muscat experience. Oman Med J. 2021;36(1):e216.

Adler L, Vinker S, Heymann AD, Van Poel E, Willems S, Zacay G. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care physicians in Israel, with comparison to an international cohort: a cross-sectional study. Israel J Health Policy Res. 2022;11(1):1.

Haldane V, Zhang Z, Abbas RF, Dodd W, Lau LL, Kidd MR, Rouleau K, Zou G, Chao Z, Upshur RE, Walley J. National primary care responses to COVID-19: a rapid review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e041622.

Hussein ES, Al-Shenqiti AM, Ramadan RM. Applications of medical digital technologies for noncommunicable diseases for follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12682.

Desborough J, Dykgraaf SH, Phillips C, Wright M, Maddox R, Davis S, Kidd M. Lessons for the global primary care response to COVID-19: a rapid review of evidence from past epidemics. Fam Pract. 2021;38(6):811–25.

Sandhu HS, Smith RW, Jarvis T, O’Neill M, Di Ruggiero E, Schwartz R, Rosella LC, Allin S, Pinto AD. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health systems and practice in 3 Canadian provinces from the perspective of public health leaders: a qualitative study. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2022;28(6):702–11.

Farsalinos K, Poulas K, Kouretas D, Vantarakis A, Leotsinidis M, Kouvelas D, Docea AO, Kostoff R, Gerotziafas, Antoniou MN, Polosa R. Improved strategies to counter the COVID-19 pandemic: Lockdowns vs. primary and community healthcare. Toxicol Rep. 2021;8:1–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fitzpatrick K, Sehgal A, Montesanti S, Pianarosa E, Barnabe C, Heyd A, Kleissen T, Crowshoe L. Examining the role of Indigenous primary healthcare across the globe in supporting populations during public health crises. Global Public Health. 2022;24:1–29.

Liaw ST, Kuziemsky C, Schreiber R, Jonnagaddala J, Liyanage H, Chittalia A, Bahniwal R, He JW, Ryan BL, Lizotte DJ, Kueper JK. Primary care informatics response to Covid-19 pandemic: adaptation, progress, and lessons from four countries with high ICT development. Yearbook Med Inform. 2021;30(01):044–55.

Djalante R, Shaw R, DeWit A. Progress in disaster. Science. 2020;6:100080.

Fatima R, Akhtar N, Yaqoob A, Harries AD, Khan MS. Building better tuberculosis control systems in a post-COVID world: learning from Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;1(113):S88-90.

Shin WY, Kim C, Lee SY, Lee W, Kim JH. Role of primary care and challenges for public–private cooperation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An expert Delphi study in South Korea. Yonsei Med J. 2021;62(7):660.

Thompson RN, et al. Key questions for modelling COVID-19exit strategies. Proc R Soc B. 2020;287:20201405. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1405 .

Baral P. Health systems and services during COVID-19: lessons and evidence from previous crises: a rapid scoping review to inform the United Nations research roadmap for the COVID-19 recovery. Int J Health Serv. 2021;51(4):474–93.

Daou M, Helou S, El Helou J, El Hachem C, El Helou E. Ensuring care continuity in extreme crises: A participatory action research approach. InMEDINFO 2021: One World, One Health–Global Partnership for Digital Innovation 2022 (pp. 937-941). IOS Press.

Besigye IK, Namatovu J, Mulowooza M. Coronavirus disease-2019 epidemic response in Uganda: the need to strengthen and engage primary healthcare. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2020;12(1):1–3.

Silva MJ, Santos P. The impact of health literacy on knowledge and attitudes towards preventive strategies against COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105421 . (PMID:34069438;PMCID:PMC8159089).

Sultana A, Bhattacharya S, Hossain MM. COVID-19 and primary care: a critical need for strengthening emergency preparedness across health systems. J Fam Med Primary Care. 2021;10(1):584–5.

Xu RH, Shi LS, Xia Y, Wang D. Associations among eHealth literacy, social support, individual resilience, and emotional status in primary care providers during the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Digit Health. 2022;25(8):20552076221089788. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221089789 . (PMID:35355807;PMCID:PMC8958311).

Bajgain BB, Jackson J, Aghajafari F, Bolo C, Santana MJ. Immigrant Healthcare Experiences and Impacts During COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study in Alberta Canada. J Patient Exp. 2022;9:23743735221112708.

Kim AY, Choi WS. Considerations on the implementation of the telemedicine system encountered with stakeholders’ resistance in COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed e-Health. 2021;27(5):475–80.

Tayade MC. Strategies to tackle by primary care physicians to mental health issues in India in COVId-19 pandemic. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(11):5814–5.

Thomas C. Resilient health and care: Learning the lessons of Covid-19 in the English NHS, IPPR. 2020.  http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/resilient-health-and-care .

Saab MM, O’Driscoll M, FitzGerald S, Sahm LJ, Leahy-Warren P, Noonan B, Kilty C, Lyons N, Burns HE, Kennedy U, Lyng Á. Primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives on patient help-seeking for lung cancer warning signs and symptoms: a qualitative study. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):1–5.

Ma L, Han X, Ma Y, Yang Y, Xu Y, Liu D, Yang W, Feng L. Decreased influenza vaccination coverage among Chinese healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis Pov. 2022;11(05):63–73.

Ismail SA, Lam ST, Bell S, Fouad FM, Blanchet K, Borghi J. Strengthening vaccination delivery system resilience in the context of protracted humanitarian crisis: a realist-informed systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–21.

Litke N, Weis A, Koetsenruijter J, Fehrer V, Koeppen M, Kuemmel S, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M. Building resilience in German primary care practices: a qualitative study. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):1–4.

Den Broeder L, South J, Rothoff A, Bagnall AM, Azarhoosh F, Van Der Linden G, Bharadwa M, Wagemakers A. Community engagement in deprived neighbourhoods during the COVID-19 crisis: perspectives for more resilient and healthier communities. Health promotion international. 2022;37(2):daab098.

Sundararaman T, Muraleedharan VR, Ranjan A. Pandemic resilience and health systems preparedness: lessons from COVID-19 for the twenty-first century. J Soc Econ Dev. 2021;23(Suppl 2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00133-x . (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34720480; PMCID: PMC7786882).

Ferreira NN, Garibaldi PM, Moraes GR, Moura JC, Klein TM, Machado LE, Scofoni LF, Haddad SK, Calado RT, Covas DT, Fonseca BA. The impact of an enhanced health surveillance system for COVID-19 management in Serrana, Brazil. Public Health Pract. 2022;1(4):100301.

Harzheim E, Martins C, Wollmann L, Pedebos LA, Faller LD, Marques MD, Minei TS, Cunha CR, Telles LF, Moura LJ, Leal MH. Federal actions to support and strengthen local efforts to combat COVID-19: Primary Health Care (PHC) in the driver’s seat. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2020;5(25):2493–7.

Smaggus A, Long J, Ellis LA, Clay-Williams R, Braithwaite J. Government actions and their relation to resilience in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(9):1682–94. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.67 .

Tselebis A, Pachi A. Primary mental health care in a New Era. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(10):2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10102025 . (PMID:36292472;PMCID:PMC9601948).

Rieckert A, Schuit E, Bleijenberg N, Ten Cate D, de Lange W, de Man-van Ginkel JM, Mathijssen E, Smit LC, Stalpers D, Schoonhoven L, Veldhuizen JD, Trappenburg JC. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043718. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043718 .

Basu P, Alhomoud S, Taghavi K, Carvalho AL, Lucas E, Baussano I. Cancer screening in the coronavirus pandemic era: adjusting to a new situation. JCO Global Oncol. 2021;7(1):416–24.

Rieckert A, Schuit E, Bleijenberg N, et al. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e043718. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043718 .

Shaikh BT. Strengthening health system building blocks: configuring post-COVID-19 scenario in Pakistan. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e9 Cambridge University Press.

Franzosa E, Gorbenko K, Brody AA, Leff B, Ritchie CS, Kinosian B, Ornstein KA, Federman AD. “At home, with care”: lessons from New York City home-based primary care practices managing COVID-19. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(2):300–6.

Adhikari B, Mishra SR, Schwarz R. Transforming Nepal’s primary health care delivery system in global health era: addressing historical and current implementation challenges. Global Health. 2022;18(1):1–2.

Mas Bermejo P, Sánchez Valdés L, Somarriba López L, Valdivia Onega NC, Vidal Ledo MJ, Alfonso Sánchez I, et al. Equity and the Cuban National Health System's response to COVID-19. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e80. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2021.80 .

Gong F, Hu G, Lin H, Sun X, Wang W. Integrated Healthcare Systems Response Strategies Based on the Luohu Model During the COVID-19 Epidemic in Shenzhen, China. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5628 .

Gomez T, Anaya YB, Shih KJ, Tarn DM. A qualitative study of primary care physicians’ experiences with telemedicine during COVID-19. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(Supplement):S61-70.

Teng K, Russo F, Kanuch S, Caron A. Virtual Care Adoption-Challenges and Opportunities From the Lens of Academic Primary Care Practitioners. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2022;28(6):599–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001548 . (Epub 2022 Aug 27. PMID: 36037465; PMCID: PMC9555588).

Anaya YB, Mota AB, Hernandez GD, Osorio A, Hayes-Bautista DE. Post-pandemic telehealth policy for primary care: an equity perspective. J Am Board Fam Med. 2022;35(3):588–92.

Florea M, Lazea C, Gaga R, Sur G, Lotrean L, Puia A, Stanescu AM, Lupsor-Platon M, Florea H, Sur ML. Lights and shadows of the perception of the use of telemedicine by Romanian family doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:1575.

Selick A, Durbin J, Hamdani Y, Rayner J, Lunsky Y. Accessibility of Virtual Primary Care for Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study. JMIR Form Res 2022;6(8):e38916. https://formative.jmir.org/2022/8/e38916 . https://doi.org/10.2196/38916 .

Frost R, Nimmons D, Davies N. Using remote interventions in promoting the health of frail older persons following the COVID-19 lockdown: challenges and solutions. J Am Med Direct Assoc. 2020;21(7):992.

Suija K, Mard LA, Laidoja R, et al. Experiences and expectation with the use of health data: a qualitative interview study in primary care. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23:159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01764-1 .

Sullivan EE, McKinstry D, Adamson J, Hunt L, Phillips RS, Linzer M. Burnout Among Missouri Primary Care Clinicians in 2021: Roadmap for Recovery? Mo Med. 2022;119(4):397–400 (PMID: 36118800; PMCID: PMC9462904).

Tang C, Chen X, Guan C, Fang P. Attitudes and Response Capacities for Public Health Emergencies of Healthcare Workers in Primary Healthcare Institutions: A Cross-Sectional Investigation Conducted in Wuhan, China, in 2020. Int Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912204 .

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, Chua A, Verma M, Shrestha P, Singh S, Perez T. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964–80.

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, Chua A, Verma M, Shrestha P, Singh S, Perez T, Tan SM, Bartos M, Mabuchi S, Bonk M, McNab C, Werner GK, Panjabi R, Nordström A, Legido-Quigley H. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964-80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01381-y .

Berger Z, De Jesus VA, Assoumou SA, Greenhalgh T. Long COVID and health inequities: the role of primary care. Milbank Q. 2021;99(2):519.

Haldane V, Dodd W, Kipp A, Ferrolino H, Wilson K, Servano D, Lau LL, Wei X. Extending health systems resilience into communities: a qualitative study with community-based actors providing health services during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–2.

Haun JN, Cotner BA, Melillo C, Panaite V, Messina W, Patel-Teague S, Zilka B. Proactive integrated virtual healthcare resource use in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–4.

Kelly F, Uys M, Bezuidenhout D, Mullane SL, Bristol C. Improving Healthcare Worker Resilience and Well-Being During COVID-19 Using a Self-Directed E-Learning Intervention. Front Psychol. 2021;12:748133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748133 .

Thekkur P, Fernando M, Nair D, Kumar AMV, Satyanarayana S, Chandraratne N, Chandrasiri A, Attygalle DE, Higashi H, Bandara J, Berger SD, Harries AD. Primary Health Care System Strengthening Project in Sri Lanka: Status and Challenges with Human Resources, Information Systems, Drugs and Laboratory Services. Healthcare. 2022;10(11):2251. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112251 .

Balogun M, Banke-Thomas A, Gwacham-Anisiobi U, Yesufu V, Ubani O, Afolabi BB. Actions and AdaptationsImplemented for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Service Provision During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Lagos, Nigeria: Qualitative Study of Health Facility Leaders. Ann Glob Health. 2022;88(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3529 .

Llamas S, MP AP, Felipe P. Patient safety training and a safe teaching in primary care. Aten Primaria. 2021;53 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):102199.

Eze-Emiri C, Patrick F, Igwe E, Owhonda G. Retrospective study of COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in Rivers State, Nigeria. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e061826.

Golechha M, Bohra T, Patel M, Khetrapal S. Healthcare worker resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of primary care providers in India. World Med Health Policy. 2022;14(1):6–18.

Gómez-Restrepo C, Cepeda M, Torrey WC, Suarez-Obando F, Uribe-Restrepo JM, Park S, Acosta MP, Camblor PM, Castro SM, Aguilera-Cruz J, González L. Perceived access to general and mental healthcare in primary care in Colombia during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;10:896318.

Nejat N, Borzabadi Farahani Z. COVID-19 pandemic: opportunities for continuing nursing professional development. J Med Educ Dev. 2022;14(44):1–2.

DeVoe JE, Cheng A, Krist A. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(4):e200423.

Hoeft TJ, Hessler D, Francis D, Gottlieb LM. Applying lessons from behavioral health integration to social care integration in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2021;19(4):356–61.

Silsand L, Severinsen GH, Berntsen G. Preservation of Person-Centered care through videoconferencing for patient follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic: case study of a multidisciplinary care team. JMIR Format Res. 2021;5(3):e25220.

Sullivan E, Phillips R.S. Sustaining primary care teams in the midst of a pandemic. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020; 9. 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-020-00434-w .

Abd El Kader AI, Faramawy MA. COVID-19 anxiety and organizational commitment among front line nurses: Perceived role of nurse managers' caring behavior. Nurs Pract Today. 2022;9(1):X.

Croghan IT, Chesak SS, Adusumalli J, Fischer KM, Beck EW, Patel SR, Ghosh K, Schroeder DR, Bhagra A. Stress, resilience, and coping of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2021;12:21501327211008450.

Aragonès E, del Cura-González I, Hernández-Rivas L, Polentinos-Castro E, Fernández-San-Martín MI, López-Rodríguez JA, Molina-Aragonés JM, Amigo F, Alayo I, Mortier P, Ferrer M. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(720):e501-10.

Franck E, Goossens E, Haegdorens F, Geuens N, Portzky M, Tytens T, Dilles T, Beeckman K, Timmermans O, Slootmans S, Van Rompaey B. Role of resilience in healthcare workers’ distress and somatization during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study across Flanders Belgium. Nurs Open. 2022;9(2):1181–9.

DeTore NR, Sylvia L, Park ER, Burke A, Levison JH, Shannon A, et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;146:228–33.

Shi LS, Xu RH, Xia Y, Chen DX, Wang D. The impact of COVID-19-related work stress on the mental health of primary healthcare workers: the mediating effects of social support and resilience. Front Psychol. 2022;21(12):800183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800183 . (PMID:35126252;PMCID:PMC8814425).

Golden EA, Zweig M, Danieletto M, Landell K, Nadkarni G, Bottinger E, Katz L, Somarriba R, Sharma V, Katz CL, Marin DB. A resilience-building app to support the mental health of health care workers in the COVID-19 era: Design process, distribution, and evaluation. JMIR Format Res. 2021;5(5):e26590.

Chan AY, Ting C, Chan LG, Hildon ZJ. “The emotions were like a roller-coaster”: a qualitative analysis of e-diary data on healthcare worker resilience and adaptation during the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):60.

Ashley C, James S, Williams A, Calma K, Mcinnes S, Mursa R, Stephen C, Halcomb E. The psychological well-being of primary healthcare nurses during COVID-19: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(9):3820–8.

Carmona LE, Nielfa MD, Alvarado AL. The Covid-19 pandemic seen from the frontline. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;27(46):181–94.

Delobelle PA, Abbas M, Datay I, De Sa A, Levitt N, Schouw D, Reid S. Non-communicable disease care and management in two sites of the Cape Town Metro during the first wave of COVID-19: A rapid appraisal. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2022;14(1):e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v14i1.3215 .

Luciani S, Agurto I, Caixeta R, Hennis A. Prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the Americas region in the era of COVID-19. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e83. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.83 .

Cabral IE, Pestana-Santos M, Ciuffo LL, Nunes YDR, Lomba MLLF. Child health vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and Portugal. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2021;29:e3422. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4805.3422 . (Published 2021 Jul 2).

Ludin N, Holt-Quick C, Hopkins S, Stasiak K, Hetrick S, Warren J, Cargo T. A Chatbot to support young people during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New Zealand: evaluation of the real-world rollout of an open trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e38743.

Breton M, Deville-Stoetzel N, Gaboury I, Smithman MA, Kaczorowski J, Lussier MT, Haggerty J, Motulsky A, Nugus P, Layani G, Paré G. Telehealth in primary healthcare: a portrait of its rapid implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare Policy. 2021;17(1):73.

Knop M, Mueller M, Niehaves B. Investigating the use of telemedicine for digitally mediated delegation in team-based primary care: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e28151.

Zamiela C, Hossain NUI, Jaradat R. Enablers of resilience in the healthcare supply chain: A case study of U.S healthcare industry during COVID-19 pandemic. Res Transport Econ. 2022;93:101174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101174 . Epub 2021 Dec 24. PMCID: PMC9675944.

Lukong AM, Jafaru Y. Covid-19 pandemic challenges, coping strategies and resilience among healthcare workers: a multiple linear regression analysis. Afr J Health Nurs Midwifery. 2021;4:16–27.

Hearnshaw S, Serban S, Mohammed I, Zubair A, Jaswal D, Grant S. A local dental network approach to the COVID-19 pandemic: innovation through collaboration. Prim Dental J. 2021;10(1):33–9.

Haase CB, Bearman M, Brodersen J, Hoeyer K, Risor T. ‘You should see a doctor’, said the robot: Reflections on a digital diagnostic device in a pandemic age. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49(1):33–6.

Otu A, Okuzu O, Ebenso B, Effa E, Nihalani N, Olayinka A, Yaya S. Introduction of mobilehealth tools to support COVID-19 training and surveillance in Ogun State Nigeria. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. 2021;3:638278:1-9.

Ibragimov K, Palma M, Keane G, Ousley J, Crowe M, Carreño C, Casas G, Mills C, Llosa A. Shifting to Tele-Mental Health in humanitarian and crisis settings: an evaluation of Médecins Sans Frontières experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conflict Health. 2022;16(1):1–5.

Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Hughes G, Shaw SE. The role of information infrastructures in scaling up video consultations during COVID-19: mixed methods case study into opportunity, disruption, and exposure. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e42431. https://doi.org/10.2196/42431 . (PMID:36282978;PMCID:PMC9651004).

Jonnagaddala J, Godinho MA, Liaw ST. From telehealth to virtual primary care in Australia? a rapid scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;1(151):104470.

Tanemura N, Chiba T. The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(1):270. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3 . (Epub 2022 Aug 15. PMID: 35990766; PMCID: PMC9376898).

Zaroushani V. Occupational safety and health and response to COVID-19 using the fourth industrial revolution technologies. J Health Saf Work. 2020;10(4):329–48.

Binagwaho A, Hirwe D, Mathewos K. Health System Resilience: Withstanding Shocks and Maintaining Progress. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(Suppl 1):e2200076. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00076 .

Freed SL, Thiele D, Gardner M, Myers E. COVID-19 evaluation and testing strategies in a federally qualified health center. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S3):S284-7.

Levy P, McGlynn E, Hill AB, Zhang L, Korzeniewski SJ, Foster B, Criswell J, O’Brien C, Dawood K, Baird L, Shanley CJ. From pandemic response to portable population health: a formative evaluation of the Detroit mobile health unit program. Plos One. 2021;16(11):e0256908.

Corwin C, Sinnwell E, Culp K. A mobile primary care clinic mitigates an early COVID-19 outbreak among migrant farmworkers in Iowa. J Agromed. 2021;26(3):346–51.

Mills WR, Buccola JM, Sender S, Lichtefeld J, Romano N, Reynolds K, Price M, Phipps J, White L, Howard S. Home-based primary care led-outbreak mitigation in assisted living facilities in the first 100 days of coronavirus disease 2019. J Am Med Direct Assoc. 2020;21(7):951–3.

Sigurdsson EL, Blondal AB, Jonsson JS, Tomasdottir MO, Hrafnkelsson H, Linnet K, Sigurdsson JA. How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e043151. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043151 . (PMID:33293329;PMCID:PMC7722808).

Mirsky JB, Thorndike AN. Virtual group visits: hope for improving chronic disease management in primary care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(7):904–7.

Lauriola P, Martín-Olmedo P, Leonardi GS, Bouland C, Verheij R, Dückers ML, Van Tongeren M, Laghi F, Van Den Hazel P, Gokdemir O, Segredo E. On the importance of primary and community healthcare in relation to global health and environmental threats: lessons from the COVID-19 crisis. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(3):e004111.

Stengel S, Roth C, Breckner A, et al. Resilience of the primary health care system – German primary care practitioners’ perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01786-9 .

Adu PA, Stallwood L, Adebola SO, Abah T, Okpani AI. The direct and indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child health services in Africa: a scoping review. Global Health Res Policy. 2022;7(1):1–4.

Segal M, Giuffrida P, Possanza L, Bucciferro D. The critical role of health information technology in the safe integration of behavioral health and primary care to improve patient care. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2022;49(2):221–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-021-09774-0 . (Epub 2021 Oct 19. PMID: 34668115; PMCID: PMC8525847).

Gallardo-Rincón H, Gascon JL, Martínez-Juárez LA, Montoya A, Saucedo-Martínez R, Rosales RM, Tapia-Conyer R. MIDO COVID: A digital public health strategy designed to tackle chronic disease and the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Plos One. 2022;17(11):e0277014.

Shah SS, Safa A, Johal K, et al. A prospective observational real world feasibility study assessing the role of app-based remote patient monitoring in reducing primary care clinician workload during the COVID pandemic. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22:248. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01594-7 .

Lu M, Liao X. Access to care through telehealth among US Medicare beneficiaries in the wake of the COVID-pandemic. Front Public Health. 2022;10:946944.

Reges O, Feldhamer I, Wolff Sagy Y, Lavie G. Factors associated with using telemedicine in the primary care clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(20):13207.

Neves AL, Li E, Gupta PP, Fontana G, Darzi A. Virtual primary care in high-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Policy responses and lessons for the future. Eur J Gen Pract. 2021;27(1):241–7.

Fadul N, Regan N, Kaddoura L, Swindells S. A midwestern academic HIV clinic operation during the COVID-19 pandemic: implementation strategy and preliminary outcomes. J International Assoc Provid AIDS Care (JIAPAC). 2021;2(20):23259582211041424.

Gray C, Ambady L, Chao S PharmD, Smith W MPH, Yoon J. Virtual Management of Chronic Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From Primary Care Providers and Clinical Pharmacists. Mil Med. 2023;188(7-8):e2615-e2620. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac277 .

Hincapié MA, Gallego JC, Gempeler A, Piñeros JA, Nasner D, Escobar MF. Implementation and usefulness of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2020;11:2150132720980612.

Calvo-Paniagua J, Díaz-Arribas MJ, Valera-Calero JA, et al. A tele-health primary care rehabilitation program improves self-perceived exertion in COVID-19 survivors experiencing Post-COVID fatigue and dyspnea: A quasi-experimental study. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0271802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271802 . (Published 2022 Aug 4).

Chen K, Davoodi NM, Strauss DH, Li M, Jiménez FN, Guthrie KM, et al. J Appl Gerontol. 2022;41(11):2282–95.

Murphy M, Scott LJ, Salisbury C, Turner A, Scott A, Denholm R, Lewis R, Iyer G, Macleod J, Horwood J. Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(704):e166-77.

Maria AR, Serra H, Heleno B. Teleconsultations and their implications for health care: a qualitative study on patients’ and physicians’ perceptions. Int J Med Inform. 2022;1(162):104751.

Liddy C, Singh J, Mitchell R, Guglani S, Keely E. How one eConsult service is addressing emerging COVID-19 questions. J Am Board Fam Med. 2022;35(3):601–4.

Schow DC, Thomson A, Trusty WT, Buchi-Fotre L. Use of a research as intervention approach to explore telebehavioral health services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Southeastern Idaho. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2022;13:21501319211073000.

Bruns BE, Lorenzo-Castro SA, Hale GM. Controlling blood pressure during a pandemic: The impact of telepharmacy for primary care patients. J Pharm Pract. 2022;27:08971900221136629.

Pradhan NA, Samnani AA, Abbas K, Rizvi N. Resilience of primary healthcare system across low-and middle-income countries during COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):98.

Esfahani P, Mosadeghrad AM, Akbarisari A. The success of strategic planning in health care organizations of Iran. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018;31(6):563–74.

Otu A, Okuzu O, Ebenso B, Effa E, Nihalani N, Olayinka A, Yaya S. Introduction of mobile health tools to support COVID-19 training and surveillance in Ogun State Nigeria. Front Sustain Cities. 2021;5(3):638278.

Ndayishimiye C, Lopes H, Middleton J. A systematic scoping review of digital health technologies during COVID-19: a new normal in primary health care delivery. Health Technol. 2023;13(2):273–84.

Ghiasipour M, Mosadeghrad AM, Arab M, Jaafaripooyan E. Leadership challenges in health care organizations: The case of Iranian hospitals. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31(1):560–7.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Arshad Altaf for his invaluable comments on the earlier drafts of this work.

Funding for this project was provided by the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health policy and management, Health Economics and Management Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad

Health policy, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Saveh, Iran

Mahnaz Afshari

Health management, School of Public Health, Zabol University of Medical Sciences, Zabol, Iran

Parvaneh Isfahani

Health services management, Health Economics and Management Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Farahnaz Ezzati, Mahdi Abbasi, Shahrzad Akhavan Farahani & Leila Eslambolchi

Health Management, School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK

Maryam Zahmatkesh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LE, MA, MZ and AMM participated in the design of the study. LE, AMM, MA, MZ, PI, FE, MA and SHA undertook the literature review process. All authors drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Eslambolchi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Tehran University of Medical Science (Approval ID: IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1401.0979).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Mosadeghrad, A.M., Afshari, M., Isfahani, P. et al. Strategies to strengthen the resilience of primary health care in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 841 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11278-4

Download citation

Received : 14 January 2024

Accepted : 03 July 2024

Published : 25 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11278-4

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

• Primary health care system
• Strengthening strategies

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of foot–terrain interaction mechanics for heavy-duty legged robots.

1. Introduction

2. supporting feet of heavy-duty legged robots, 2.1. supporting foot configurations of heavy-duty legged robots, 2.1.1. feet with passive adaptive joints, cylindrical supporting foot configurations, semi-cylindrical supporting foot configurations, spherical supporting foot configurations, hemispherical supporting foot configurations, square supporting foot configurations, special supporting foot configurations, 2.1.2. feet with active driving joints, 2.2. plantar patterns of supporting foot of legged robots, 3. dynamics analysis of robot, 3.1. models of pressure–sinkage for mobile robot, 3.1.1. models for pressure–sinkage at zero slip conditions, a theoretical exploration of the wheeled robots, a theoretical exploration of the wheel-legged composite robots, a theoretical exploration of the legged robots, 3.1.2. models for pressure–sinkage at non-zero slip conditions, 3.2. tangential force models, 4. further research, 4.1. configuration research of biomimetic supporting feet, 4.1.1. application of bionic technology in supporting feet design, 4.1.2. design and distribution of plantar patterns of supporting feet, 4.2. study of effective contact area between irregular foot and dynamic deformable terrain, 4.3. mechanical behavior modeling of interaction between supporting feet and extreme/dynamic environments, 4.3.1. construction of nonlinear tangential force mathematical model, 4.3.2. construction of resultant force mathematical model, 4.4. parameterization research of soil characteristics in extreme/dynamic environments, 4.5. cross-application of multimodal information fusion and foot–terrain interaction mechanics, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest, nomenclature.

• Zhuang, H.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; Ding, L.; Liu, Z. A review of heavy-duty legged robots. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2014 , 57 , 298–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biswal, P.; Mohanty, P.K. Development of quadruped walking robots: A review. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021 , 12 , 2017–2031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maity, A.; Majumder, S.; Ghosh, S. An experimental hyper redundant serpentine robot. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—SMC, Istanbul, Turkey, 10–13 October 2010; pp. 3180–3185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joshi, V.A.; Banavar, R.N.; Hippalgaonkar, R. Design and analysis of a spherical mobile robot. Mech. Mach. Theory 2010 , 45 , 130–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bartsch, S.; Manz, M.; Kampmann, P.; Dettmann, A.; Hanff, H.; Langosz, M.; von Szadkowski, K.; Hilljegerdes, J.; Simnofske, M.; Kloss, P.; et al. Development and Control of the Multi-Legged Robot MANTIS. In Proceedings of the ISR 2016: 47st International Symposium on Robotics, Munich, Germany, 21–22 June 2016; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobano, J.; Ponticelli, R.; de Santos, P.G. Mobile robotic system for detection and location of antipersonnel land mines: Field tests. Ind. Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl. 2008 , 35 , 520–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carbone, G.; Ceccarelli, M. Legged Robotic Systems ; Intech Open Access Publisher: London, UK, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Q.; Zhao, W.; Chu, S.; Wang, L.; Fu, J.; Yang, J.; Gao, B. Research Progress of Nuclear Emergency Response Robot. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018 , 452 , 042102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.C.; Wang, N.; Gao, H.B.; Deng, Z.Q. Autonomous fault-tolerant gait planning research for electrically driven large-load-ratio six-legged robot. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications (ICIRA 2019), Shenyang, China, 8–11 August 2019; pp. 231–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.-C.; Gao, H.-B.; Deng, Z.-Q. Gait Planning Research for an Electrically Driven Large-Load-Ratio Six-Legged Robot. Appl. Sci. 2017 , 7 , 296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.-C.; Gao, H.-B.; Deng, Z.-Q. Analysis Method of Articulated Torque of Heavy-Duty Six-Legged Robot under Its Quadrangular Gait. Appl. Sci. 2016 , 6 , 323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bloesch, M.; Gehring, C.; Fankhauser, P.; Hutter, M.; Hoepflinger, M.A.; Siegwart, R. State estimation for legged robots on unstable and slippery terrain. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2013), Tokyo, Japan, 3–7 November 2013; pp. 6058–6064. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Voloshina, A.S.; Kuo, A.D.; Ferris, D.P.; Remy, D.C. A model-based analysis of the mechanical cost of walking on uneven terrain. bioRxiv 2020 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.; Xia, Y.; Wang, N.; Li, W.; Dong, L.; Li, B. Interactive method research of dual mode information coordination integration for astronaut gesture and eye movement signals based on hybrid model. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2023 , 66 , 1717–1733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Saraiva, L.; da Silva, M.R.; Marques, F.; da Silva, M.T.; Flores, P. A review on foot-ground contact modeling strategies for human motion analysis. Mech. Mach. Theory 2022 , 177 , 105046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hodoshima, R.; Doi, T.; Fukuda, Y.; Hirose, S.; Okamoto, T.; Mori, J. Development of a Quadruped Walking Robot TITAN XI for Steep Slope Operation—Step Over Gait to Avoid Concrete Frames on Steep Slopes. J. Robot. Mechatron. 2007 , 19 , 13–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hirose, S.; Yokota, S.; Torii, A.; Ogata, M.; Suganuma, S.; Takita, K.; Kato, K. Quadruped Walking Robot Centered Demining System—Development of TITAN-IX and its Operation. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 18–22 April 2005; pp. 1284–1290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hirose, S.; Fukuda, Y.; Kikuchi, H. The gait control system of a quadruped walking vehicle. Adv. Robot. 1986 , 1 , 289–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Irawan, A.; Nonami, K. Compliant Walking Control for Hydraulic Driven Hexapod Robot on Rough Terrain. J. Robot. Mechatronics 2011 , 23 , 149–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bares, J.E.; Wettergreen, D.S. Dante II: Technical Description, Results, and Lessons Learned. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1999 , 18 , 621–649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• A Galvez, J.; Estremera, J.; de Santos, P.G. A new legged-robot configuration for research in force distribution. Mechatronics 2003 , 13 , 907–932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.C. Electrically Driven Large-Load-Ratio Six-Legged Robot Structural Design and Its Mobile Characteristics Research. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhuang, H.; Wang, N.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z. Quickly Obtaining Range of Articulated Rotating Speed for Electrically Driven Large-Load-Ratio Six-Legged Robot Based on Maximum Walking Speed Method. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 29453–29470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Ding, L.; Gao, H.; Liu, G.; Deng, Z.; Yu, H. Efficient force distribution algorithm for hexapod robot walking on uneven terrain. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Qingdao, China, 3–7 December 2016; pp. 432–437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, P.; Ding, L.; Li, Z.; Yang, H.; Wang, Z.; Gao, H.; Zhou, R.; Su, Y.; Deng, Z.; Huang, Y. Learning physical characteristics like animals for legged robots. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2023 , 10 , nwad045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, Y.; Gao, F. A new six-parallel-legged walking robot for drilling holes on the fuselage. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2014 , 228 , 753–764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, P.; Gao, F. Kinematical Model and Topology Patterns of a New 6-Parallel-Legged Walking Robot. In Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Volume 4: 36th Mechanisms and Robotics Conference, Parts A and B, Chicago, IL, USA, 12–15 August 2012; pp. 1197–1205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, Y.; Gao, F. Payload capability analysis of a new kind of parallel leg hexapod walking robot. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS), Luoyang, China, 25–27 September 2013; pp. 541–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, P.; Gao, F. Leg kinematic analysis and prototype experiments of walking-operating multifunctional hexapod robot. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2013 , 228 , 2217–2232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.Y. Analysis of the Structure and Stability of a Large and Highly Adaptable Hexapod Robot. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2021. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhai, C. Research on Motion Trajectory Planning of Heavy-Load Hydraulic Driven Hexapod Robots. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2023. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, J. Leg Mechanism Design and Simulation Analysis for a Heavy-Duty Hydraulic Hexapod Robot. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2017. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, Z.; Yi, H.; Liu, D.; Zhang, R.; Luo, X. Design a Hybrid Energy-Supply for the Electrically Driven Heavy-Duty Hexapod Vehicle. J. Bionic Eng. 2023 , 20 , 1434–1448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Chen, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhou, L.; Yi, H.; Bao, C. Design and Implementation of a Novel Robot Foot with High-adaptability and High-adhesion for Heavy-load Walking Robots. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 9th Annual International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), Suzhou, China, 29 July–2 August 2019; pp. 1509–1514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raibert, M.; Blankespoor, K.; Nelson, G.; Playter, R. BigDog, the rough-terrain quadruped robot. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2008 , 41 , 10822–10825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wooden, D.; Malchano, M.; Blankespoor, K.; Howardy, A.; Rizzi, A.A.; Raibert, M. Autonomous navigation for BigDog. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2010), Anchorage, AK, USA, 3–7 May 2010; pp. 4736–4741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, X.; Wang, S.; Cao, Z.; Zhang, L. A review of quadruped robots and environment perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE 35th Control Conference (CCC), Chengdu, China, 27–29 July 2016; pp. 6350–6356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zang, H.; Zhao, D.; Shen, L. Theoretical Study of Global Scale Analysis Method for Agile Bionic Leg Mechanism. Robotica 2020 , 38 , 427–441. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, B.; Yi, H.; Xu, Z.; Yang, X.; Luo, X. 3D-SLIP model based dynamic stability strategy for legged robots with impact disturbance rejection. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 5892. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, J.F. Design, Control of Hydraulical Actuators for Quadruped Legged Robot. Master’s Thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng, P. Research, Design of Control System for Bionic Quadruped Robot. Master’s Thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Qi, C.; Gao, F.; Sun, Q.; Chen, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, X. A foot force sensing approach for a legged walking robot using the motor current. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Zhuhai, China, 6–9 December 2015; pp. 1078–1083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Q.; Gao, F.; Chen, X. Towards dynamic alternating tripod trotting of a pony-sized hexapod robot for disaster rescuing based on multi-modal impedance control. Robotica 2018 , 36 , 1048–1076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiao, S. Design, Dynamic Gait Control of the Rescue Hexapod Robot with Erect Posture and Parallel Mechanism Leg. Ph.D. Dissertation, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China, 2018. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Michael, K. Meet Boston Dynamics’ LS3—The Latest Robotic War Machine ; University of Wollongong: Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rong, X.; Li, Y.; Ruan, J.; Li, B. Design and simulation for a hydraulic actuated quadruped robot. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2012 , 26 , 1171–1177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.; Rong, X.; Li, Y.; Ding, C.; Chai, H.; Zhou, L. A compliant control method for robust trot motion of hydraulic actuated quadruped robot. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2018 , 15 , 1729881418813235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, K.; Zhou, L.; Rong, X.; Li, Y. Onboard hydraulic system controller design for quadruped robot driven by gasoline engine. Mechatronics 2018 , 52 , 36–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bartsch, S.; Birnschein, T.; Cordes, F.; Kuehn, D.; Kampmann, P.; Hilljegerdes, J.; Planthaber, S.; Roemmermann, M.; Kirchner, F. Spaceclimber: Development of a six-legged climbing robot for space exploration. In Proceedings of the ISR 2010 (41st International Symposium on Robotics) and ROBOTIK 2010 (6th German Conference on Robotics), Munich, Germany, 7–9 June 2010; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartsch, S.; Birnschein, T.; Römmermann, M.; Hilljegerdes, J.; Kühn, D.; Kirchner, F. Development of the six-legged walking and climbing robot SpaceClimber. J. Field Robot. 2012 , 29 , 506–532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitano, S.; Hirose, S.; Horigome, A.; Endo, G. TITAN-XIII: Sprawling-type quadruped robot with ability of fast and energy-efficient walking. ROBOMECH J. 2016 , 3 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ohtsuka, S.; Endo, G.; Fukushima, E.F.; Hirose, S. Development of terrain adaptive sole for multi-legged walking robot. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2010), Taipei, Taiwan, 18–22 October 2010; pp. 5354–5359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Talebi, S.; Poulakakis, I.; Papadopoulos, E.; Buehler, M. Quadruped robot running with a bounding gait. In Experimental Robotics VII ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 281–289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Santos, P.G.; Cobano, J.; Garcia, E.; Estremera, J.; Armada, M. A six-legged robot-based system for humanitarian demining missions. Mechatronics 2007 , 17 , 417–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.; Li, Y.; Rong, X.; Zhang, G.; Chai, H.; Bi, J.; Wang, Q. Design and Control of a Novel Leg-Arm Multiplexing Mobile Operational Hexapod Robot. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022 , 7 , 382–389. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nelson, G.; Saunders, A.; Neville, N.; Swilling, B.; Bondaryk, J.; Billings, D.; Lee, C.; Playter, R.; Raibert, M. PETMAN: A Humanoid Robot for Testing Chemical Protective Clothing. J. Robot. Soc. Jpn. 2012 , 30 , 372–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuindersma, S.; Deits, R.; Fallon, M.; Valenzuela, A.; Dai, H.; Permenter, F.; Koolen, T.; Marion, P.; Tedrake, R. Optimization-based locomotion planning, estimation, and control design for the atlas humanoid robot. Auton. Robot. 2016 , 40 , 429–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuehn, D.; Schilling, M.; Stark, T.; Zenzes, M.; Kirchner, F. System Design and Testing of the Hominid Robot Charlie. J. Field Robot. 2017 , 34 , 666–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fondahl, K.; Kuehn, D.; Beinersdorf, F.; Bernhard, F.; Grimminger, F.; Schilling, M.; Stark, T.; Kirchner, F. An adaptive sensor foot for a bipedal and quadrupedal robot. In Proceedings of the 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob 2012), Rome, Italy, 24–27 June 2012; pp. 270–275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mosher, R. Test and evaluation of a versatile walking truck. In Proceedings of the Off-Road Mobility Research Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 1968; pp. 359–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirose, S.; Yoneda, K.; Tsukagoshi, H. TITAN VII: Quadruped walking and manipulating robot on a steep slope. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 25 April 1987; pp. 494–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, G.; Xu, J.; Jiang, J.; Cao, Z.; Zhu, D. Soil arching effect analysis and structure optimization of a robot foot sinking in soft soil. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2017 , 9 , 1687814017727940. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, G.; Cao, Z.; Li, Q.; Zhu, D.; Aimin, J. Influence of hexapod robot foot shape on sinking considering multibody dynamics. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 34 , 3823–3831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chopra, S.; Tolley, M.T.; Gravish, N. Granular Jamming Feet Enable Improved Foot-Ground Interactions for Robot Mobility on Deformable Ground. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020 , 5 , 3975–3981. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, Y.; Yi, S.; Ryu, S.; Lee, C. Design and experimental test of a new robot foot for a quadrupedal jointed-leg type walking robot. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. RO-MAN’96 TSUKUBA, Tsukuba, Japan, 11–14 November 1996; pp. 317–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yamamoto, K.; Sugihara, T.; Nakamura, Y. Toe joint mechanism using parallel four-bar linkage enabling humanlike multiple support at toe pad and toe tip. In Proceedings of the 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2007), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 29 November–1 December 2007; pp. 410–415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borovac, B.; Slavnic, S. Design of Multi-segment Humanoid Robot Foot. In Proceedings of the Research and Education in Robotics—EUROBOT 2008: International Conference, Heidelberg, Germany, 22–24 May 2008; pp. 12–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nabulsi, S.; Sarria, J.F.; Montes, H.; Armada, M.A. High-Resolution Indirect Feet–Ground Interaction Measurement for Hydraulic-Legged Robots. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2009 , 58 , 3396–3404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collins, S.H.; Kuo, A.D. Recycling Energy to Restore Impaired Ankle Function during Human Walking. PLoS ONE 2010 , 5 , e9307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Y. The Analysis and Test of the Robot Foot-Ground Adhesion Properties. Master’s Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2014. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zou, Y.Y. Landing Point Planning and Foot Pattern Design of Hexapod Robot. Master’s Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2019. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, J. The Design and Research of Heavy-Duty Robot High Adaptability Foot. Master’s Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2016. (In Chinese). [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, K.W.; Wu, H.H.; Lin, Y.-C. The effect of shoe sole tread groove depth on the friction coefficient with different tread groove widths, floors and contaminants. Appl. Ergon. 2006 , 37 , 743–748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, K.W.; Chen, C.J.; Lin, C.-H.; Hsu, Y.W. Relationship between measured friction coefficients and two tread groove design parameters for footwear pads. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2006 , 11 , 712–719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, K.W.; Chen, C.J. Effects of tread groove orientation and width of the footwear pads on measured friction coefficients. Saf. Sci. 2005 , 43 , 391–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Irani, R.; Bauer, R.; Warkentin, A. A dynamic terramechanic model for small lightweight vehicles with rigid wheels and grousers operating in sandy soil. J. Terramechanics 2011 , 48 , 307–318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, L.; Yang, H.; Gao, H.; Li, N.; Deng, Z.; Guo, J.; Li, N. Terramechanics-based modeling of sinkage and moment for in-situ steering wheels of mobile robots on deformable terrain. Mech. Mach. Theory 2017 , 116 , 14–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, H.; Wang, N.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z. Power Consumption Characteristics Research on Mobile System of Electrically Driven Large-Load-Ratio Six-Legged Robot. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2023 , 36 , 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Zhuang, H.-C.; Gao, H.-B.; Deng, Z.-Q.; Ding, L. Static Force Analysis of Foot of Electrically Driven Heavy-Duty Six-Legged Robot under Tripod Gait. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2018 , 31 , 63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bernstein, R. Problems of the experimental mechanics of motor ploughs. Der Motorwagen 1913 , 16 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saakyan, S.S. Vzaimodeistrie vedomogo kolesa i pochvi. 1959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Comin, F.J.; Saaj, C.M. Models for Slip Estimation and Soft Terrain Characterization with Multilegged Wheel–Legs. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2017 , 33 , 1438–1452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Komizunai, S.; Konno, A.; Abiko, S.; Uchiyama, M. Development of a static sinkage model for a biped robot on loose soil. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII 2010), Sendai, Japan, 21–22 December 2010; pp. 61–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bekker, M.G. Land Locomotion on the Surface of Planets. ARS J. 1962 , 32 , 1651–1659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patel, N.; Scott, G.; Ellery, A. Application of Bekker Theory for Planetary Exploration Through Wheeled, Tracked, and Legged Vehicle Locomotion. In Proceedings of the Space 2004 Conference and Exhibit, San Diego, CA, USA, 28–30 September 2004; p. 6091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reece, A.R. Principles of Soil-Vehicle Mechanics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Automob. Div. 1965 , 180 , 45–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gotteland, P.; Benoit, O. Sinkage tests for mobility study, modelling and experimental validation. J. Terramechan. 2006 , 43 , 451–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, L.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, G. New perspective on characterizing pressure–sinkage relationship of terrains for estimating interaction mechanics. J. Terramechan. 2014 , 52 , 57–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hunt, K.; Crossley, F.R.E. Coefficient of Restitution Interpreted as Damping in Vibroimpact. J. Appl. Mech. 1975 , 42 , 440–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wheeler, D.D.; Chavez-Clemente, D.; Sunspiral, V.K. FootSpring: A compliance model for the ATHLETE family of robots. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, ON, Canada, 20–21 June 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Youssef, A.-F.A.; Ali, G.A. Determination of soil parameters using plate test. J. Terramechan. 1982 , 19 , 129–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, D.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, H.; Hu, Z.; Li, J. Mechanical Performances of Typical Robot Feet Intruding into Sands. Energies 2020 , 13 , 1867. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, L.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; Song, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, G.; Iagnemma, K. Foot–terrain interaction mechanics for legged robots: Modeling and experimental validation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2013 , 32 , 1585–1606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, H.; Jin, M.; Ding, L.; Liu, Y.; Li, W.; Yu, X.; Deng, Z.; Liu, Z. A real-time, high fidelity dynamic simulation platform for hexapod robots on soft terrain. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2016 , 68 , 125–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, C.; Ding, L.; Tang, D.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; Wang, G. Analysis of the normal bearing capacity of the terrain in case of foot-terrain interaction based on Terzaghi theory. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Qingdao, China, 3–7 December 2016; pp. 443–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vasilev, A.V.; Dokychaeva, E.N.; Utkin-Lubovtsov, O.L. Effect of Tracked Tractor Design Parameters on Tractive Performance ; Mashinostroenie: Moscow, Russia, 1969.
• Yeomans, B.; Saaj, C.M. Towards terrain interaction prediction for bioinspired planetary exploration rovers. Bioinspiration Biomim. 2014 , 9 , 016009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Awrejcewicz, J.; Olejnik, P. Analysis of Dynamic Systems with Various Friction Laws. Appl. Mech. Rev. 2005 , 58 , 389–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olsson, H.; Åström, K.; de Wit, C.C.; Gäfvert, M.; Lischinsky, P. Friction Models and Friction Compensation. Eur. J. Control 1998 , 4 , 176–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddadi, A.; Hashtrudi-Zaad, K. A New Method for Online Parameter Estimation of Hunt-Crossley Environment Dynamic Models. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice, France, 22–26 September 2008; pp. 981–986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zapolsky, S.; Drumwright, E. Inverse dynamics with rigid contact and friction. Auton. Robot. 2017 , 41 , 831–863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Senoo, T.; Ishikawa, M. Analysis of sliding behavior of a biped robot in centroid acceleration space. Robotica 2017 , 35 , 636–653. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, H.; Xie, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wei, P.; Cui, C. A Three-Dimensional Mass-Spring Walking Model Could Describe the Ground Reaction Forces. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021 , 2021 , 6651715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, L.; Xu, P.; Li, Z.; Zhou, R.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; Liu, G. Pressing and Rubbing: Physics-Informed Features Facilitate Haptic Terrain Classification for Legged Robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022 , 7 , 5990–5997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, C.; Ding, L.; Tang, D.; Gao, H.; Niu, L.; Lan, Q.; Li, C.; Deng, Z. Improved Terzaghi-theory-based interaction modeling of rotary robotic locomotors with granular substrates. Mech. Mach. Theory 2020 , 152 , 103901. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iagnemma, K.; Kang, S.; Shibly, H.; Dubowsky, S. Online Terrain Parameter Estimation for Wheeled Mobile Robots with Application to Planetary Rovers. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2004 , 20 , 921–927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, C. Space exploration: Secrets of the martian soil. Nature 2007 , 448 , 742–744. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yen, A.S.; Gellert, R.; Schröder, C.; Morris, R.V.; Bell, J.F.; Knudson, A.T.; Clark, B.C.; Ming, D.W.; Crisp, J.A.; Arvidson, R.E.; et al. An integrated view of the chemistry and mineralogy of martian soils. Nature 2005 , 436 , 49–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hecht, M.H.; Kounaves, S.P.; Quinn, R.C.; West, S.J.; Young, S.M.M.; Ming, D.W.; Catling, D.C.; Clark, B.C.; Boynton, W.V.; Hoffman, J.; et al. Detection of Perchlorate and the Soluble Chemistry of Martian Soil at the Phoenix Lander Site. Science 2009 , 325 , 64–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shorthill, R.W.; Moore, H.J.; Hutton, R.E.; Scott, R.F.; Spitzer, C.R. The Environs of Viking 2 Lander. Science 1976 , 194 , 1309–1318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moore, H.J.; Hutton, R.E.; Clow, G.D.; Spitzer, C.R. Physical Properties of the Surface Materials at the Viking Landing Sites on Mars ; United States Government Printing Office: Washington, USA, 1987. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp1389 (accessed on 1 July 2024).
• Ding, L.; Zhou, R.; Yuan, Y.; Yang, H.; Li, J.; Yu, T.; Liu, C.; Wang, J.; Gao, H.; Deng, Z.; et al. A 2-year locomotive exploration and scientific investigation of the lunar farside by the Yutu-2 rover. Sci. Robot. 2022 , 7 , eabj6660. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Heiken, G.H.; Vaniman, D.T.; French, B.M. Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slyuta, E.N. Physical and mechanical properties of the lunar soil (a review). Sol. Syst. Res. 2014 , 48 , 330–353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Zhuang, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, N.; Li, W.; Li, N.; Li, B.; Dong, L. A Review of Foot–Terrain Interaction Mechanics for Heavy-Duty Legged Robots. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 6541. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156541

Zhuang H, Wang J, Wang N, Li W, Li N, Li B, Dong L. A Review of Foot–Terrain Interaction Mechanics for Heavy-Duty Legged Robots. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(15):6541. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156541

Zhuang, Hongchao, Jiaju Wang, Ning Wang, Weihua Li, Nan Li, Bo Li, and Lei Dong. 2024. "A Review of Foot–Terrain Interaction Mechanics for Heavy-Duty Legged Robots" Applied Sciences 14, no. 15: 6541. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156541

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals