literature review research paper

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.

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

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.

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 August 21, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Time to refocus for South Korean science

Nature Index 21 AUG 24

What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp

Career Column 21 AUG 24

How South Korea’s science stars are finding success

South Korean science on the global stage

What will it take to open South Korean research to the world?

How South Korea can build better gender diversity into research

The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists

News 20 AUG 24

Faculty Position in Tissue Regeneration and Stem Cell Biology

Dallas, Texas (US)

Children’s Medical Center Research Institute at UT Southwestern

Faculty Position in Metabolism Research

Faculty position in cancer biology.

Postdoctoral Fellow Position - Breast Medical Oncology

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Regenerative Biology and Medicine, CIMR

Regenerative Biology and Medicine, including but not limited to disease immunology, ageing, biochemistry of extracellular matrix...

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

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

• 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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

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

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

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

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2024

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

• Annette Boaz 1 ,
• Belinda Goodenough 2 ,
• Stephen Hanney 3 &
• Bryony Soper 3  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  113 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

56 Accesses

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

Conclusions

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a “dose effect” from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Peer Review reports

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. This assumption contributed to policy documents from various health organizations promoting research engagement by healthcare providers as a way of improving healthcare, for example, in the United Kingdom [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Therefore, it was believed that policy-makers who make relevant decisions, such as on the allocation of resources for health and health research systems, should have access to evidence on the validity of the assumption. In the United Kingdom, two programmes of the National Institute for Health Research (now called the National Institute for Health and Care Research) (NIHR) decided to commission reviews of the global evidence on this [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The wide-ranging brief provided for the second review, which was the original review by the authors of this present paper (published in full as Hanney et al. in 2013 [ 3 ] and more succinctly as Boaz et al. in 2015 [ 2 ]), included the additional aim of conducting a theoretically grounded synthesis to explore the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. The protocol for that study considered pertinent global literature, including on accelerating the adoption of evidence in health systems, and ways to enhance the relevance of the research conducted to the needs of health systems. The final protocol published as part of the Hanney et al. report [ 3 ] then used these ideas to identify possible mechanisms that would be worth analysing to help understand the processes that might be at work when research engagement leads to improved health. Among these was the idea that engaging in conducting research increases the ability and willingness of clinicians to use research findings from the global pool of knowledge, and here the concept of “absorptive capacity” was expected to be useful [ 3 ].

Some analyses focussed on the importance of exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare to contribute towards understanding of the benefits for healthcare performance in the context of a strong research culture. These papers were reviewed in Australia by Harding et al. in 2017 [ 4 ].

As far as we are aware, these three systematic literature reviews published in the second decade of this century provided the first analyses of the empirical evidence available to support the assumption of improved healthcare from research engagement [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Their differing scopes and approaches are summarized briefly in Table  1 .

All three of the reviews reported some evidence of a positive association between research engagement and healthcare performance, but the available evidence was not mature enough to support statements about causality [ 2 ]. Our review [ 2 , 3 ] had the widest scope of the three, reflecting the broad brief given by our NIHR funder. It included an extensive initial mapping exercise, a formal focussed review, and a wider review which drew on the earlier stages to explore, as noted above, the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. Our review identified 33 papers from 9 countries (15 from the United States), 28 of which reported positive findings [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Even our review concluded, however, that there did not appear to be a well-structured, steadily accumulating body of knowledge about the benefits associated with research engagement.

In the succeeding years, we have identified a continuing and growing interest in this general topic, therefore an updated review seemed desirable to gather more evidence about how far research engagement might lead to improved healthcare and the mechanisms involved. In addition to these general questions, our original review had identified two specific issues that could usefully be considered further. These were research networks as potentially important mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare, and whether greater amounts of research engagement would have a larger beneficial effect. Our original review also covered some aspects of a third issue (health equity) that has subsequently become increasingly important [ 2 , 3 ].

The growing development of research networks has been associated with efforts to move towards more formalized attempts to boost the role of health research systems in accelerating science and facilitating the translation of research into practice [ 2 , 3 ]. However, at the time of our original review, the evidence was still emerging and its availability was heavily skewed by the different timing of the establishment of formal research networks in different countries.

In the United States, various research networks had been set up in the second half of the last century, and most of the early papers on networks and their role came from there [ 2 ]. These networks in the United States are described in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ). They include the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Cancer Community Oncology Program (CCOP), established to encourage outreach and improve equity by bringing the advantages of clinical research to cancer patients in their own communities [ 37 ]. In the United Kingdom in contrast, national research networks were not formally created until this century, too late for any potential benefits to patient outcomes to be fully researched and reported prior to our review which started in 2011. However, even in our original review we were aware of concurrent United Kingdom work to measure those outcomes and to improve patient access to clinical research, and identified a need for further evaluations (see Hanney et al. [ 3 ], pp. 48, 83).

Subsequently, we also became increasingly aware of new studies on the effects of the developing research networks, especially in the United Kingdom, and Boaz et al. identified a promising approach in statistical analysis that could help further analysis [ 2 ]. As set out in the Glossary, there have been policy shifts and organizational changes in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there have been further ones elsewhere, which are designed to promote research networks to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice, including various efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services. There has also been an increasing emphasis, including within research networks, on the potential research contribution of healthcare professionals other than medical professionals.

Our original review had also noted a partly related second issue as worthy of further attention. This is the question of whether the association between research engagement by healthcare providers and improved healthcare outcomes increases with greater amounts of research participation. There was early evidence that it did. This came, in particular, from the 2008 paper by Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] that compared outcomes for patients with angina in hospitals in the United States having a high level of angina research activity with hospitals with low research activity, and those with no research activity. Other papers compared centres with different levels of research activity within a research network [ 23 ]. However, there was little certainty about extent and implications around this issue at that time, although it has become increasingly important with the development of the comprehensive research networks that we summarize in the Glossary. It also has theoretical implications for the exact nature of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare: in our original review we argued that further data on this effect, and on the time an institution was research active, “are needed to provide evidence of causation” (p. 12) [ 2 ].

These findings also have implications for health equity, the third unresolved issue. More outreach by research networks means more access to clinical research and its benefits for more patients. The United States CCOP has been rightly lauded for achieving this [ 37 ], but can that be squared with the emerging finding that higher levels of research participation in specific provider institutions bring greater benefit to the patients in those centres?

Reflection on these uncertainties further strengthened the argument that with all the developments since our original review, it seemed timely in 2020 to revisit this topic to explore and collate what additional understanding had been gained. While conducting the resulting update, we became aware of some more recent developments. A United Kingdom qualitative systematic review was published in 2021 that explored the impact of research activity by healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and another UK review published in 2023 focussed on research engagement by allied health professionals (AHPs) [ 39 ]. With few exceptions, the papers specifically on nursing and AHPs in these reviews were typically smaller scale than the papers included in our formal review, and/or usually did not include the quantifiable comparisons that featured in most of our included papers. Nevertheless, these reviews usefully illustrate the growing interest in the contribution of these healthcare professionals in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In addition, we identified a large-scale study from the United States by Shahian et al. [ 40 ] that was published in 2022 and examined the link between research engagement and improved healthcare performance in 5 major medical fields across 1604 Medicare-participating hospitals. A noticeable facet of the paper by Shahian et al. was their referencing of a large number of papers that we had identified either in our original review, or in the first phase of our updated review [ 40 ].

To ensure our updated review adequately reflected all such developments since May 2020, we conducted a further search in March 2024. The review presented here is based on papers identified in both phases of the updated review, the findings of which are then combined with those from our original review.

Review question

To identify studies, the primary research question used the same approach as Boaz et al. [ 2 , 3 ].

Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance?

By research engagement, we mean, as in our original review, engagement in research rather than the broader concept of engagement with research, and we are referring to participation in research by healthcare organizations and staff rather than patient participation in trials. Engagement in research is taken to mean, “a deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by healthcare staff (including conducting research and playing an active role in the whole research cycle) and organizations (including playing an active role in research networks, partnerships or collaborations)” (p. 2) [ 2 ].

The 2020 decision to complete an update of the previous review [ 2 , 3 ] was informed by a published decision framework for updating systematic reviews [ 41 ]. After completion in 2024 of the comprehensive initial phase of the updated review, including the two searches and considerable subsequent analysis, we recognized, as noted above, that while we had been conducting the review some important further papers had been published. We wanted to incorporate such papers, and so decided to conduct a further search for papers. The design of this final phase (which included a third search) was informed both by the fact that we had already identified a considerable number of papers for the updated review, and by the way new papers in this field were by now much more likely to cite earlier papers, with Shahian et al. [ 40 ] being a prime example. Therefore, we thought it was reasonable to rely to a much greater extent on checking citations to the papers already identified, as explained below.

Search strategy and information sources

Search 1 (update).

The first step in syntax development used the Medline Ovid strategy published by Boaz et al. [ 2 ].

Initial diagnostic testing indicated issues preventing code execution. Due to the syntax comprising several nested terms and Boolean operators, it was rebuilt using recommendations for “single-line” optimization for debugging complex code [ 42 ].

Search 2 (modified)

The syntax for Search 2 was a term modification to capture papers that more explicitly indexed research networks and collaborations. Search 2 necessitated a deeper dive into the full-text content of papers. The decision to search full-text articles reflected observations that the sensitivity of Search 1 was potentially affected by the variable quality (and relevance for our review) of abstracts, a consistent challenge for reviewers [ 43 ]. As a second search also adapted published syntax, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Literature Search—Extension Checklist (PRISMA-S) reporting protocol was followed [ 44 ]. (The full text for search strategies is provided in “Search Strategy and Syntax Sensitivity”; see Additional file 2 ).

Electronic databases

Nine electronic records collections were used in Search 1: Medline (OVID and EBSCO), EMBASE, PsycInfo (OVID and EBSCO), CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Management and Information Consortium and British Nursing Institute. The mix provided parity with previous reviews and mitigated risk of missed papers by combining general and specialized databases. Different interfaces (e.g. OVID, EBSCO) for the same collection were also included to offset variations due to platform [ 45 ]. Grey literature was not searched: these collections failed to uniquely identify papers in previous reviews on this topic. Search 2 was restricted to the Medline EBSCO Full Text records, which was the collection which yielded the highest hit ratio for relevant papers (see Additional file 2 ).

Other sources

Manual and snowball searching were used in three ways. Firstly, a range of search engines (Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest Central, Scopus, the Web of Science Cited Reference Search) were used to track citations for (a) prior reviews as whole papers, (b) the individual studies within these reviews and (c) article reference lists. Secondly, key journals that published studies shortlisted in the previous reviews were hand-checked, including: Implementation Science, PLOS One, BMJ Open and BMC Health Services Research. Thirdly, topic experts suggested papers for consideration.

Search 3 (final phase)

As explained above, we subsequently conducted a further search covering May 2020–March 2024. This consisted of: a hand-search of three of the journals in which papers from the first phase of the updated review had been published (Health Research Policy and Systems, Implementation Science and Medical Care); a check of papers in the two reviews published in this period [ 38 , 39 ]; and a check of citations in this period to all the papers identified both in our original review and in the update’s initial phase.

Eligibility criteria

The following limiters were applied:

Timeframe: 1 January 2012 to 20 March 2024 (inclusive of eprint)

Population: Human (any setting)

Language: English (any country)

Paper type: Academic Journals (scholarly works). Conference papers were admitted as flags for accessible peer-reviewed works (e.g. pre-print) or key teams.

Three criteria were defined, guided by definitions from the original review [ 3 ].

Criterion A: study design

Empirical studies using method/s aligned with health services research, including clinical trials, retrospective cohort and survey methods. Studies with only patient reported outcomes (e.g. satisfaction) were excluded.

Criterion B: healthcare performance

Studies must report an outcome indexing performance assessment for a care process or healthcare improvement. The following were excluded: staff-specific reports alone, (e.g. job satisfaction or morale), policy impacts alone (no flow through to healthcare), descriptions of networks without outcomes data.

Criterion C: research engagement

Explicit demonstration of engagement in research including: agenda-setting, conducting research, participation in action research or in networks where the research involvement is noted. This criterion also allowed engagement implicitly through research network membership, even if a specific study was not recorded, but there was a comparison of healthcare between member and non-member settings. More details about examples that were in scope can be found in Hanney et al. [ 3 , p. 2].

Records management

To efficiently manage the export of the large records for the first two searches, Endnote X9 (Clarivate) was used to combine downloads from different databases and discard software detected duplicates. The endnote library was imported into Rayyan, a free multi-collaborator online screening tool [ 46 ]. Study selection procedures for Searches 1 and 2 followed the same screening/eligibility check sequence.

Screening and eligibility/quality checking

In Rayyan, titles were scanned to exclude papers that were irrelevant, did not meet criteria or were non-exact duplicates. Abstracts of retained records were then screened and classified as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe”. A third screening of “maybe” classifications forced a binary coding of “include” or “exclude”, with comment flags on issues. A final records’ sweep with the Rayyan query function checked for misclassified studies. This four-step screening process was completed by a single reviewer (BG).

Full-text for each provisionally included study was uploaded into Rayyan. The initial eligibility check was completed by three experts who were involved in article screening for Hanney et al. [ 3 ]. As a criterion check and to orient reviewers to the Rayyan platform, a practice phase used 10 randomly sampled records. The abstract was the primary source for expert reviewers, with full-text also available. After the practice task and consensus discussion of criteria, a batch of records (alphabet determined) was assigned to each expert reviewer, to rate each paper as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe” (ratings were unblinded). If the rating pair (i.e. B.G. and an expert from the original review) were both “include”, the paper was progressed to full-text appraisal. If there was disagreement, papers rated as “maybe” were reassigned to another expert reviewer for an opinion, and those rated as “exclude” by an expert reviewer were marked for discard. If consensus for a “maybe” paper could not be reached by discussion, it was progressed to a full text appraisal, conducted by a single reviewer (B.G.) using all available information sources and reviewer ratings.

A final review of all potential “includes” was jointly conducted by team members, including a few papers identified by other sources such as continued manual snowballing from key papers. The study selection procedures for Search 3 mirrored this final step, and so consisted of a review of all potential “includes” conducted jointly by team members.

Study quality was assessed using the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT v2018), on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) [ 47 ]. The MMAT accommodated all designs in the paper set. The majority of the papers have a design which fitted into the MMAT category of quantitative non-randomized. All papers scored good to high quality on the five questions in their relevant MMAT subscale. The lower end of ratings (good) was typically due to lack of information in the article, such as whether and/or how confounding factors may have been identified or managed. Quality ratings were not used to exclude papers, but formed part of the discussion about the quality and contribution of the papers.

Data extraction, coding and ethics

As Rayyan is only a screening platform, a data extraction sheet was created in Excel (v2016) for each included paper. A university research ethics committee deemed the project as not requiring formal ethical approval, due to secondary data mining on anonymized aggregated records.

A large and methodologically diverse mix of papers was identified with a range of different outcomes and outcome measures. The papers were combined through a process of critical interpretive synthesis inspired, as in our original review, by the approach outlined by Dixon-Woods et al. [ 48 ]. This involves adopting an iterative approach to refining the research question, searching the literature and defining and applying codes and categories. It enables the generation and development of theory with strong explanatory power and uses relevance as one measure of quality. Following analysis of the papers in the updated review, we collated the results from the updated review with those from our original review to create one combined set of papers for overall analysis.

Figure  1 summarizes the review literature flow. The two formal searches identified 66 901 records, with 68 further papers coming from other sources, including the March 2024 extension. From these, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal, and 62 were identified for inclusion [ 40 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ].

Flow diagram for literature search

This review updates the previous review conducted by the team [ 2 ]. Table 2 outlines the 95 papers in our combined review: the 62 additional papers in the updated review along with the 33 papers in our original review. The latter 33 papers are shown in italics in Table  2 , which includes details about the study characteristics of all 95 included papers as well as key dimensions of the findings. To complement Table  2 , brief notes on the development and scope of key United States and United Kingdom research networks/organizations discussed in the papers are provided in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ).

Study characteristics

Across the 95 papers, 12 countries are either the location for the research engagement described in a single-country study, or the location from which a multi-country study was led, with one paper led from South Africa having authors from a range of African countries (and Yemen) [ 88 ]. The 12 countries are: United States (50 papers), United Kingdom (17), Canada (7), Spain (5), Germany (4), the Netherlands (3), Australia (2), Denmark (2), South Africa (2), China (1), Finland (1) and Sweden (1).

Cancer was the most common field, with 32/95 papers overall. Next came hospital care in general/multi-field/acute care with 16 papers, cardiovascular/stroke (12), substance use disorder (7), dentistry (3), mental health/psychiatry (3) and obstetrics (3).

Main findings

As presented in Table  2 , the key findings from the combined review are presented in terms of the four pairs of binary options, though inevitably some papers did not neatly fit into one category. The first categorization is in terms of the level of analysis explored in different papers; 23 papers compare clinicians, but 72 compare organizations. There is an even higher proportion in the updated review at the organizational level (50/62, 81%) than in our original review (22/33, 67%).

A total of 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 are positive/mixed meaning that there are some key negative elements in their findings, that is, important parts of the analysis where a lack of healthcare improvement is identified. Nine papers are negative, of which four are negative-mixed.

The final two pairs of binary options consider just the 86 positive papers. In total, 37/86 report improved health outcomes in terms of reduced mortality or morbidity. A higher proportion of the positive papers in the updated review (30/58, 52%) than in our original review (7/28, 25%) describe such improved health outcomes. There is a corresponding reduction from three quarters (21/28) to a half (28/58) in the proportion of papers solely describing improved processes in terms such as applying proven interventions.

Finally, in terms of the type of impact, 55/86 of the papers describe research engagement leading to a broader impact on healthcare performance. Broad impacts arise when the improved healthcare goes more widely than just being linked to clinicians or healthcare organizations implementing the findings, or processes, from their own research more rapidly/extensively than do others. When the improved healthcare is linked to the results or processes of their own research, that is categorized as specific impact, which is the case in 31/86 papers. Using these various categories, Fig.  2 outlines the findings from the combined review, alongside the findings from our original review, and the updated review. This highlights various trends in terms of the main findings.

Results from Boaz et al. systematic reviews of whether research engagement by health organizations and staff improves healthcare: analysis of original; updated; and combined reviews (and of the 86 positive papers). Green rows (top): original review; Brown rows (middle): updated review; blue rows (bottom): combined review

One further trend in terms of the type of analysis is seen in the 11/95 papers that used bibliometric analysis as an indicator of the extent, and/or quality, of research engagement compared with some measure of the healthcare performance, in terms of processes and/or outcomes [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 100 ]; 10 of these papers are in the updated review, with just 1 [ 30 ] from our original review. All these 11 papers are positive, but various types of bibliometric analysis are used. The broad categories of academic indicators applied include publication volume [ 95 , 96 ], publication “quality” (for example, as measured by citations) [ 51 ] and a combination of volume and “quality” [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 97 , 100 ]. Of the latter, five relatively small studies suggest that the association with “quality” was stronger than with volume. The bibliometric studies also illustrate the varying levels of analysis at which the included studies in the review are conducted; 4 of the 11 papers compare the academic outputs of clinicians [ 50 , 56 , 96 , 97 ] and 7 make comparisons at an organizational level [ 30 , 40 , 51 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 100 ], focussing variously on academic outputs at ward, department or hospital/trust level.

The combined review allows for a range of issues to be analysed more thoroughly than they had been in our original review. These include issues highlighted in the background such as the role of networks and the “dose effect”. These are examined in turn below, followed by consideration of how far the included studies have addressed various aspects of health equity, and finally an analysis of lessons from the overall portfolio of positive and negative studies.

The role of research networks

The full significance of papers on research networks is seen in the combined review. Using the inclusive definition developed by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], we have applied the term to various arrangements that, however loosely, give some measure of commonality to the research of multiple healthcare organizations that not only enhance science production, but also share a concern to transfer research findings into clinical practice. About half the papers in the combined review analysed research activity by clinicians or healthcare organizations who were part of research networks of various types.

In the United States, the NCI cancer research networks include the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centres, the NCI Cooperative Groups and collaborative groups of community hospitals affiliated to the NCI’s CCOP- see the Glossary for its new name. In various ways these networks all include outreach and the engagement of community physicians in their brief; see the Glossary for more details. Their potential was recognized early in the 2005 study by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ] that looked at these networks and concluded that network membership may influence compliance with treatment guidelines, and should therefore be taken into account in predictive models of compliance.

Seven included papers illustrated various aspects of this issue by comparing the processes and outcomes for patients treated at NCI-designated (comprehensive) cancer centres with those treated elsewhere, six of these studies showed better outcomes for patients treated at NCI centres [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ], while one paper suggested that despite better processes, patient outcomes were worse at NCI centres. This paper is considered in the section on negative papers below [ 81 ]. Of the positive papers, Paulson et al. showed how the NCI designation was “associated with lower risk of postoperative death and improved long-term survival” (p. 675) [ 86 ], identified possible factors such as better adherence to guidelines, and demonstrated that the better outcomes at NCI-designated centres remained even when compared with non-NCI designated centres with a similar high volume of cases [ 86 ]. Wolfson et al. identified the requirements that underpin the positive association between high-quality research and high-quality care [ 106 ]. These included the mandate NCI centres have to “lead clinical trials, exchange ideas, disseminate findings” (p. 3892), which showed how the centres could act as part of a network. Wolfson et al. continued: “The NCI operates on the belief that a culture of discovery, scientific excellence, transdisciplinary research, and collaboration yields tangible benefits extending far beyond the generation of new knowledge” [ 106 ].

Building on Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], Carpenter et al. demonstrated an association between CCOP membership and accelerated innovation adoption but added the important codicil that it was not possible to “definitively ascertain whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two” [ 54 ].

Improved healthcare has also been associated with membership of the United States practice-based research networks (PBRNs). These networks cover family practice/primary care, dentistry, mental health and substance abuse. Like the CCOP and its affiliates, PBRNs involve practising clinicians in the community who conduct research. The combined review includes seven PBRN papers covering primary care and dentistry, all of which are positive [ 32 , 36 , 66 , 78 , 83 , 92 , 108 ] and one of which describes an international dental PBRN led from the United States that includes three Scandinavian countries [ 66 ].

A total of seven papers from another PBRN, the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Clinical Trials Network (CTN), also provided evidence of accelerated translation, identified mechanisms through which this might work, and discussed the theoretical frameworks within which those operated [ 5 , 14 , 23 , 49 , 63 , 90 , 91 ]. Thus, Ducharme et al. [ 14 ] and Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] explored Rogers’ notion of the “trialability” [ 110 ] of innovations, that is, how far an innovation may be experimented with on just a limited basis, and Abraham et al. [ 5 ] discussed the role of absorptive capacity [ 111 , 112 ], which they summarized as an organization’s ability to assess and use information [ 5 ]. Rieckmann et al. noted that although the mechanisms involved were not fully understood they appeared “to be influenced by core experiences from network participation” (p. 894) [ 91 ], and Fields et al. [ 63 ] used insights from implementation science to explore the influence of a set of organizational characteristics (including network membership) on innovation adoption [ 113 ].

In an analysis of data on 12 993 transplants conducted in 162 US centres, the 32 centres in the Bone Marrow Transplant trials network were found to have significantly better survival rates than others [ 77 ]. Marmor et al. reported that there was not an association between procedure volume and survival. Rather, they suggested, the better outcomes for those treated in centres in this network could be linked to the nature of trials that required “higher levels of national clinical collaboration and standardization of protocols”, and such collaboration was “likely to generate higher levels of innovation and excellence among clinical colleagues” (p. 92) [ 77 ].

In Germany, one team produced three papers on the improved healthcare performance of hospitals that were part of clinical trials organizations [ 13 , 34 , 94 ]. Two papers described the improved outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer if they were treated in a hospital that belonged to one of two German ovarian cancer clinical trials organizations, in effect research networks [ 13 , 34 ]. They noted that the improved outcomes were not related to patient volume, suggesting instead that possible factors may include hospitals’ participation in the study group’s quality assurance programs and team members attending regular and scientific and educational meetings [ 13 ]. In a follow-up study, the data were analysed in more detail using mediation analysis that showed not just that the research participation of a hospital contributed to superior patient survival, but also began to unpick how it happened, including through better use of surgery and chemotherapy [ 94 ].

Downing et al. noted that, following the 2006 establishment of the NIHR in the United Kingdom, the increase in research activity in networks throughout the English NHS also increased the scope for analysing the benefits of research engagement [ 58 ]. The role of NIHR networks in boosting research engagement, which is then linked to improved healthcare, also covers clinicians such as nurses and AHPs who had traditionally had limited research opportunities. Studies are now showing how they can play an important role by engaging in research because, according to Trusson et al. reporting on a research network for nurses and AHPs, people working in such roles “have opportunities to explore possible solutions to issues that they encounter in their clinical role through academic study” (p. 1) [ 101 ]. Such opportunities can also enhance their clinical skills. More broadly, Downing et al. claimed that, in relation to the NIHR’s clinical trials network, “this natural experiment, presented by the rapid expansion of trial activity across a whole national health system, is perhaps the best opportunity to address the subject though outcomes research” (p. 95) [ 58 ]. This development is discussed in the next section.

The “dose effect” of the extent of research engagement

Evidence indicating a link between the extent of research engagement and the degree of improved healthcare has been accumulating for some time. In the United States, the 1996 study by Brown and Griffiss found that the average acute length of stay (LoS) in Department of Veteran Affairs hospitals was inversely related to the size of research programmes [ 53 ]. Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] used a tertile approach to show that in-hospital mortality decreased as the rate of trial participation increased in the area of unstable angina. In the substance abuse field, early CTN studies also contributed: thus Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] noted that the adoption of buprenorphine therapy by practitioners within the trials’ network was much greater in those programmes in the network that participated in the specific buprenorphine trial than those that had not. In a 2006 study of a sexual health trial in Australia, Morton et al. [ 28 ] identified improved post-trial clinical practice by high-recruiting clinicians, but not by low-recruiting ones.

In our combined set of papers the first use of the specific term “dose effect” to describe the effects of differing amounts of research engagement occurred in Downing et al., who tested the hypothesis that for colorectal cancer (CRC) “high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all patients with CRC managed in those research-intensive hospitals” (p. 89) [ 58 ]. They found that high participation in such clinical trials was independently associated with better outcomes and that these effects were not restricted to academic centres or large institutions but were seen across all the NHS Trusts that conducted research on and treated patients with colorectal cancer. They extended their analysis to look at the effects of different levels of research participation and found that the highest levels of participation led to the highest levels of improved outcomes. However, in relation to these findings, Downing et al. were careful to say that, in the absence of the possibility of an RCT, caution was needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” (p. 89) from participation in research activity to improved healthcare [ 58 ].

Other United Kingdom database studies support the findings of Downing et al. For example, Ozdemir et al. [ 85 ] compared mortality with research funding per hospital bed in hospitals with high, medium and low levels of research funding and showed that not only was mortality lower in high-funded research hospitals than in other hospitals, but also, on average, hospitals in the middle category had a lower mortality rate than ones with the least research funding. In two studies using NIHR research study activity data from different years, Jonker and Fisher [ 68 , 69 ] showed an inverse correlation between the number of clinical trials/patient participation levels in United Kingdom hospitals and the mortality rate. Lin et al. [ 73 ] used retrospective data to examine the survival rate of the 465 patients (recruited by 60 hospitals) who had participated in an RCT in the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN). While they identified a significant association between low trial recruitment and lower survival rates, looking at the volume of patients treated in the disease area by the respective hospitals they report that “no significance was found between hospital throughput and outcomes” (p. 40) [ 73 ].

Further support for the “dose effect” concept comes from the United States and elsewhere. According to Abraham et al., in the substance abuse field “treatment programs participating in a greater number of CTN protocols had significantly higher levels of treatment quality, an association that held after controlling for key organizational characteristics” (p. 232) [ 49 ]. Similarly, Gilbert et al. [ 66 ] reported that members of a dental PBRN who fully participated in the network were more likely to move evidence-based care into everyday practice than members who only partially participated. Seaburg et al. [ 96 ] showed an association between the quantity of resident physicians’ publications and their clinical performance scores during training, and García-Romero et al. claimed that increases in the scientific output of Spanish hospitals made a significant contribution to a reduction of hospital LoS [ 65 ].

In Canada, Tsang et al. [ 103 ] conducted a pre-planned observational study nested within a clinical trial to test how well traditionally non-research active community hospitals could participate in an RCT alongside the traditional RCT sites in academic hospitals. However, while that aspect of the study did show that, in terms of adherence to trial metrics, the community hospitals could successfully participate in studies, outcomes for patients in the trial were significantly better in the traditional research hospitals, although the full reasons for this will need further exploration [ 103 ].

• Health equity

Various aspects of health equity are considered in the included papers, and some of these report attempts to improve health equity. Some population groups are particularly vulnerable. In the United States, for example, Wolfson et al. listed the following groups: “underrepresented minorities, those with low socio-economic status (SES), those with public or no insurance, and those with a significant distance to care” (p. 3886) [ 106 ]. On the basis of its long-held assumption that patient access to research active healthcare providers is beneficial, the NCI has attempted to reduce geographic inequalities in access. In a 1995 paper, Warneke et al. noted that the CCOP was established by the NCI in 1983 with the deliberate intention of spreading the benefits of the clinical research conducted in NCI centres: “The program was designed with the assumption that by participating as equals in the research process, community physicians would be more likely to accept and implement the results in their practices with non-protocol patients” (p. 336) [ 37 ].

Similar moves to encourage wider participation in clinical trials have recently been made in Canada in the nested study described above [ 103 ]. A recent analysis showing higher levels of research activity within the English healthcare system were associated with lower mortality, noted that although the NIHR CRN was established to promote research participation across England, there was still some way to go to ensure greater geographical equity [ 69 ].

Other initiatives, such as the United States minority-based CCOPs described in the Glossary, addressed racial inequalities in relation to access to research engagement and timely evidence-based healthcare. These sometimes overlap with geographic inequalities. Some of the papers on the NCI-designated cancer centres observed with concern that the proportion of certain racial/ethnic groups, including African Americans, who received treatment at these centres compared with non-NCI centres, was lower than for other racial groups [ 64 , 80 , 106 ]. Having noted that African Americans with colon cancer experienced worse outcomes than Caucasian Americans, and suggested that this was partly due to differential treatment, a study by Penn et al. found evidence that African Americans receiving treatment from CCOP providers had benefitted from a seemingly deliberate attempt to boost early access to a recently recommended innovative treatment [ 87 ]. In Australia, Young et al. [ 109 ] reported that the health services, and health research system, of the Aboriginal community work together to try to ensure health research is embedded into activities that improve health, and described a specific example in relation to ear, nose and throat surgery and speech-language pathology services.

Lessons from the overall collection of studies: positive and negative

A wide variety of papers contribute to the combined review’s overall finding that the included studies are overwhelmingly positive. As the section on the “dose effect” illustrates, throughout the time covered by the combined review, individual papers have contributed to a wider understanding that goes beyond specific issues about research networks. Many papers contribute to the analysis of both the strength of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare, and the mechanisms involved. For example, a 2019 US positive study by Fanaroff et al. [ 60 ] identified improved care and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated at research active hospitals, even after accounting for potential confounders. The authors encapsulated some of the key thinking on research engagement with their conclusion that participation in clinical trials by hospitals “may be emblematic of a culture that embraces novel therapeutics, engages both clinicians and patients, and incentivizes continuous improvement in care” (p. 191) [ 60 ].

While overall the 95 studies included in the combined review are positive, about 10% are categorized as negative. These nine negative papers also provide important insights [ 7 , 11 , 15 , 20 , 25 , 67 , 79 , 81 , 99 ]. For example, existing widespread use of one proven intervention prior to a company-sponsored clinical trial exploring physicians’ adherence to international treatment recommendations meant that the trial had no significant impact on that adherence, although it did increase use of the trial sponsor’s drug [ 7 ]; physicians adopted another trial intervention before it was proven one way or another [ 11 ]; more positively, a unique policy and regulatory environment governing the adoption of another intervention ensured that all hospitals benefitted, not just those in the trial [ 79 ]. Two teams with negative results later conducted further, more comprehensive studies with positive conclusions [ 25 , 26 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Six of the seven papers examining whether NCI-designated cancer centres provided patients with better healthcare processes and outcomes are positive [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ]. However, one paper suggested that outcomes were worse in these accredited hospitals despite the better healthcare and, in seeking to explain this, drew attention to the factors considered in the accreditation processes used by different organizations and how far they accurately captured the most relevant data [ 81 ].

Our original review set out to find whether there was empirical evidence that supported the often-held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. It concluded that there was some positive evidence but that systematic analysis of the data related to this engagement was in its infancy [ 2 ]. The 62 papers in the updated review, 58 of which are positive, provide further empirical evidence to support the positive conclusions of the original review.

When the papers from both reviews are considered together, they provide a more complete dataset than previously available [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], and an updated picture of this literature in which the trends identified in our initial analyses [ 3 ] become more apparent. With more than a third of the papers in the combined review (32/95) focussing on aspects of cancer, this is the field overall in which there is the most comprehensive analysis of the link between research engagement and improved healthcare. While the individual cancer papers differ in the strength of the association identified, and most of the papers focus one or other of the main cancer sites, many of the cancer papers analyse the role of research networks – one of the main mechanisms through which it is claimed research engagement improves healthcare.

The combined review reflects policy shifts and organizational changes that occurred first in the United States and later in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and were designed to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice. These include the development of research networks and their associated databases over several decades (accompanied by an improved understanding of their strengths and limitations [ 54 , 64 , 77 , 106 , 108 ]) and efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services [ 61 , 87 ]. More recent developments, especially in the United Kingdom, encouraged further deliberate attempts to identify and explore the impacts of research engagement. Research teams were, for example, better able to study the real-world impacts of system-level mechanisms such as research networks as they became more formalized and embedded in national health and science structures [ 58 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 93 , 101 ].

Across the board, within and beyond networks, there is also further evidence about the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare, including the ones identified in our original review. The role of strong evidence-based protocols developed for RCTs, but contributing to improved healthcare more widely in research active healthcare sites, was highlighted in various studies [ 77 , 98 , 105 ]. Papers also identified the importance of providing evidence-based/guideline consistent care, which could also be linked to a culture of discovery, excellence and collaboration [ 40 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 77 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 106 ]. There were also more nuanced mechanisms at the speciality and clinician levels, such as the use of multi-disciplinary coordination of care in radiation therapy treatment [ 107 ] and practitioner skill development in substance abuse work [ 90 ]. Similar practitioner skill development was also reported among nurses and AHPs, including in the wider literature [ 31 , 38 , 39 , 62 , 70 , 101 ].

In the combined review it also became easier to see connections across this diverse literature. It was possible to identify research teams that had worked together on multiple studies and to explore the extent of cross referencing. In the United States, for example, the CTN of the drug abuse institute had been created to emulate the CCOP, and a centre was established to assess the CTN’s impact [ 114 ]. Analysis of this research network highlighted its role both in conducting research that was relevant to the “real-world” needs of clinical settings, and in enhancing evidence-adoption by healthcare organizations and staff [ 114 ]. Many of the papers from this substance abuse CTN [ 23 , 49 , 90 ] referenced each other and also cross-referenced key cancer papers [ 8 , 24 , 54 ], and there was common use of the same early sources [ 110 , 112 , 115 , 116 ]. These interactions prompted ongoing methodological development, strengthened understanding of theoretical concepts, and supported shared learning across the specialities. Additionally, themes that had been recognized in the original review, including concepts such as absorptive capacity [ 5 , 111 ], were further explored and tested in new contexts, even if the same literature was not always drawn upon [ 40 , 65 ].

In the combined review, the nature and strength of the association found between research engagement and improved health varies enormously among the 86 positive papers, even among those that describe the role of research networks. One approach that begins to identify where evidence might be strongest was noted in the original review as being the important concept of the “dose effect”, even if it was not specifically labelled as such [ 26 ]. However, the combined review can now more fully consider the concept because evidence about this greatly increased as the scope of the papers included has increased. There are many more studies where all the clinicians or organizations compared are engaged in research but to varying extents and/or with different levels of resources, for example within a trial [ 28 , 50 , 59 , 73 , 93 , 103 , 107 ] or within a network [ 23 , 33 , 49 , 51 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 95 ]. The inclusion of papers regarding differences within trials, and the emergence of the importance of the “dose effect”, have implications for both (a) how the issue of research engagement is analysed and (b) how far efforts to enhance research engagement should be concentrated or spread widely across a system.

In relation to the first of these issues, when considering how research engagement is analysed, the key question morphs somewhat: it is no longer simply whether research engagement improves healthcare performance compared with no research engagement, rather, it is whether a larger amount of research engagement improves healthcare performance by more than a smaller level of engagement (and, if so, by how much). Answers to these questions could then feed back to strengthen the evidence for a positive association between research engagement and improved healthcare performance.

In relation to the second question, about the concentration or wide distribution of research funding, analyses might have to consider the context and trade-offs in terms of benefits for improved health and health equity. The widespread distribution of research funding across the health system could maximize the number of patients who might benefit, but a more concentrated approach, with a higher dose of research engagement in a smaller number of hospitals, could maximize the benefit for patients in such centres.

Research infrastructures in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have been developed to enhance the relationship between health and health research systems, and the evidence from our combined review suggests that these changes have been positive. In both systems, but particularly in the United Kingdom, there have been deliberate attempts to fund major centres of research in leading healthcare facilities, as well as to spread research funding more widely to healthcare organizations across the country, but this impetus needs to be maintained if the full benefits of research engagement are to be realized.

Such an argument is reinforced by the conclusions of a major recent analysis of progress in the United Kingdom in engaging healthcare staff in research and building research capacity. The findings from the study suggest that many healthcare staff in the United Kingdom are interested in being involved in research, there are supportive national policies and strategies in place and there has been some important progress. However, achieving widespread involvement “will only be possible by focusing more on how healthcare organizations embed and support research activity through organizational policies which are supported by the wider research support and funding infrastructure. This is an essential part of a system-based approach to developing and supporting research engagement” (p. 356) [ 117 ]. The progress possible, and the potential benefits of trying to build a health research system embedded into a healthcare system, but also the full range of substantial challenges, have also recently been explored in a hospital and regional healthcare system in northern Queensland, Australia [ 118 , 119 ]. Studies such as these indicate that this combined review could provide timely evidence to further the challenging task of improving healthcare by boosting engagement in health research.

Strengths and limitations

The combined review contains a considerable number of papers from diverse perspectives, but the literature is drawn predominantly from the United States and the Global North, thus the conclusions may not be appropriate in different contexts, including in the Global South. This, perhaps, partly reflects the inclusion criteria of papers in English only. While the increasing use of bibliometrics as an indicator of research engagement has widened the range of positive studies available, differing claims as to the most appropriate measure of research publications challenge consistent interpretation of the data and indicate there is more work to do. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the national policy, noted in one paper, of attaching promotion and bonuses for clinicians to publish in journals with an impact factor of at least three [ 97 ] runs contrary to the internationally widely endorsed Declaration on Research Assessment [ 120 ].

The complexity of this literature (with many generic terms such as “research” and “engagement”), and the tangential approach of some papers to the broad question of whether research engagement improves performance, posed considerable challenges. It helped enormously that this time around, we were able to build on our experience in the original review. We adopted a somewhat more extensive approach to the formal search in the updated review, and we identified some papers that we had missed in the original review. We were aided by the generally greater clarity in later papers. We are now able, therefore, to present a more nuanced understanding of this field, building on our experience in the original review. In particular, we have found considerably more evidence on two topics identified as important in our original review, and on their implications for health equity: the role of research networks and consideration of how far there is a dose effect with regard to the degrees of research engagement. On both topics the combined review has strong papers showing important healthcare improvements even after considering potential confounders such as patient volume [ 8 , 13 , 26 , 40 , 58 , 73 , 77 , 84 , 85 , 86 ]. However, the failure of some papers to address such confounders [ 59 , 107 ] means some weaknesses in the overall analysis remain, and we are still not able to undertake any meta-analysis as the included literature remains very diverse.

We have now included a significant range of largely positive papers in the combined review. However, lack of resources meant we were not able to replicate our original review’s [ 2 , 3 ] structured analysis of the wider range of papers identified as making many relevant and illuminating points related to the topic, but not meeting the review’s inclusion criteria. For example, while the combined review does include some consideration of health equity issues, there were papers taken to full paper review that were not in the end included but which provide considerably more evidence [ 121 , 122 ].

Future possible work

The system-based approaches for expanding the amount of research in healthcare systems that are mentioned above continue to provide important opportunities for further work on exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare, including the implications for health equity. Likewise, improvements in the identification and collection of relevant data and developments in statistics have prompted increasingly sophisticated analyses, sometimes using approaches developed in other fields, and could continue to do so [ 65 , 90 , 94 ]. There has also been increasingly sophisticated use of bibliometrics, and there are likely to be continuing opportunities to apply such approaches to more countries. However, the warning from Downing et al. that caution is needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” from research participation to improved health outcomes [ 58 ], as well as frequent mention of similar disclaimers in other papers [ 8 , 40 , 54 , 59 , 69 , 74 ], is a reminder that more work is needed.

While some of our papers have claimed that the costs of research engagement are broadly covered by the associated reduced LoS [ 53 , 65 ], further research might be useful around the costs associated with research engagement and how these relate to reported benefits. Such studies could add to the existing large-scale studies showing the considerable monetary value of the health and economic gains resulting from health research [ 123 ].

The insights revealed by the negative papers, particularly in relation to the contexts in which research and research networks operate [ 99 ], could usefully be further explored. Merkow et al. [ 81 ], the one negative paper out of seven papers included on the NCI-designated centres, raises issues about the accuracy, or perhaps appropriateness, of the measurement used by various organizations to accredit cancer centres. These issues have also been explored by various teams [ 122 , 124 , 125 ] but could perhaps be worth further examination because the findings from Merkow et al. are so starkly different from those of other papers included in our review.

Finally, there are increasing opportunities, as well as a growing need, to address the limitations identified above (and also noted in the review by Chalmers et al. [ 39 ]) and go beyond the formal inclusion criteria of this review. A major area that could usefully be incorporated into an overall analysis of the field relates to the impact of the growing interest in research engagement strategies [ 126 ]. This includes the efforts to enhance research roles for healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and the increasing number of organizational arrangements within health and health research systems for partnerships that seek to boost the production and use of relevant evidence [ 127 , 128 ].

Previous reviews [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] have investigated the association between research engagement and improvements in healthcare performance. This study updates and extends the most comprehensive of these reviews [ 2 , 3 ], and combines its findings with those from that original review to produce a more substantial pool of studies, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of potential mechanisms, the combined review highlights the important role played by research networks and further identifies the various ways the research engagement facilitated by them operates to improve healthcare. The review also draws together a set of papers which consider how far there is a research engagement “dose effect”. Given the difficulty of conducting randomized controlled trials of large-scale research engagement initiatives, studies of the dose effect offer another approach to understanding the potential contribution and complexities of research engagement, including the implications for health equity. This review provides further evidence of the important contribution played by systems-level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Allied health professionals

Clinical research network

Clinical trials network

Community Clinical Oncology Program

Length of stay

Mixed-methods appraisal tool

National Cancer Institute

National Health Service

National Institute for Health (and Care) Research

Practice-based research network

Research and development

Randomized controlled trials

Clarke M, Loudon K. Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner’s or institution’s participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials. 2011;12:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-16 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5: e009415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415 .

Hanney S, Boaz A, Jones T, Soper B. Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2013;1:8. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr01080 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J, Taylor NF. Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15180 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Rothrauff TC, Roman PM. The adoption of alcohol pharmacotherapies in the clinical trials network: the influence of research network participation. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38:275–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.01.003 .

Adler MW. Changes in local clinical practice following an experiment in medical care: evaluation of evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32:143–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.32.2.143 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Andersen M, Kragstrup J, Sondergaard J. How conducting a clinical trial affects physicians’ guideline adherence and drug preferences. JAMA. 2006;295:2759–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.23.2759 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carpenter WR, Reeder-Hayes K, Bainbridge J, Meyer A-M, Amos KD, Weiner BJ, et al. The role of organizational affiliations and research networks in the diffusion of breast cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2011;49:172–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182028ff2 .

Chaney EF, Rubenstein LV, Liu C-F, Yano EM, Bolkan C, Lee M, et al. Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: a cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign. Implement Sci. 2011;6:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-121 .

Chen AY, Schrag N, Hao Y, Flanders WD, Kepner J, Stewart A, et al. Changes in treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer 1985–2001. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135:831–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.07.012 .

Clark WF, Garg AX, Blake PG, Rock GA, Heidenheim AP, Sackett DL. Effect of awareness of a randomized controlled trial on use of experimental therapy. JAMA. 2003;290:1351–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.10.1351 .

Das D, Ishaq S, Harrison R, Kosuri K, Harper E, Decaestecker J, et al. Management of Barrett’s esophagus in the UK: overtreated and underbiopsied but improved by the introduction of a national randomised trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1079–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01790.x .

du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J, for the Organkommission OVAR. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:183–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15202.x .

Ducharme LJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM, Johnson JA. Innovation adoption in substance abuse treatment: exposure, trialability, and the clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:321–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.05.021 .

Goldberg HI, Neighbor WE, Hirsch IB, Cheadle AD, Ramsey SD, Gore E. Evidence-based management: using serial firm trials to improve diabetes care quality. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:155–66.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hall C, Sigford B, Sayer N. Practice changes associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Family Care Collaborative. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(Suppl. 1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1125-3 .

Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, Blanchette C, Deschenes L. Variations in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in Quebec between 1988 and 1994. CMAJ. 1999;161:951–5.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Janni W, Kiechle M, Sommer H, Rack B, Gauger K, Heinrigs M, et al. Study participation improves treatment strategies and individual patient care in participating centers. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:3661–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(05)80107-9 .

Jha P, Deboer D, Sykora K, Naylor CD. Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:1335–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00018-6 .

Jones B, Ratzer E, Clark J, Zeren F, Haun W. Does peer-reviewed publication change the habits of surgeons? Am J Surg. 2000;180:566–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00495-5 .

Karjalainen S, Palva I. Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ. 1989;299:1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6707.1069 .

Kizer JR, Cannon CP, McCabe CH, Mueller HS, Schweiger MJ, Davis VG, et al. Trends in the use of pharmacotherapies for acute myocardial infarction among physicians who design and/or implement randomized trials vs physicians in routine clinical practice: the MILIS-TIMI experience. Am Heart J. 1999;137:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70462-x .

Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Johnson JA, Roman PM. Buprenorphine adoption in the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.12.004 .

Laliberte L, Fennell ML, Papandonatos G. The relationship of membership in research networks to compliance with treatment guidelines for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care. 2005;43:471–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160416.66188.f5 .

Majumdar SR, Chang W-C, Armstrong PW. Do the investigative sites that take part in a positive clinical trial translate that evidence into practice? Am J Med. 2002;113:140–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01166-X .

Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Chen AY, Gibler WB, Armstrong PW. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:657–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2007.124 .

Meineche-Schmidt V, Hvenegaard A, Juhl HH. Participation in a clinical trial influences the future management of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:1117–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x .

Morton AN, Bradshaw CS, Fairley CK. Changes in the diagnosis and management of bacterial vaginosis following clinical research. Sex Health. 2006;3:183–5. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06024 .

Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Lopez-Ortega J. Pressure ulcer care in Spain: nurses’ knowledge and clinical practice. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:327–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04236.x .

Pons J, Sais C, Illa C, Méndez R, Suñen E, Casas M, et al. Is there an association between the quality of hospitals’ research and their quality of care? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15:204–9. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009125 .

Puoane T, Sanders D, Ashworth A, Chopra M, Strasser S, McCoy D. Improving the hospital management of malnourished children by participatory research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh002 .

Rhyne R, Sussman AL, Fernald D, Weller N, Daniels E, Williams RL, et al. Reports of persistent change in the clinical encounter following research participation: a report from the primary care multiethnic network (PRIME Net). J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:496–502. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100295 .

Rich AL, Tata LJ, Free CM, Stanley RA, Peake MD, Baldwin DR, et al. How do patient and hospital features influence outcomes in small-cell lung cancer in England? Br J Cancer. 2011;105:746–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.310 .

Rochon J, du Bois A. Clinical research in epithelial ovarian cancer and patients’ outcome. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(Suppl. 7):vii16–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr421 .

Salbach NM, Guilcher SJ, Jaglal SB, Davis DA. Determinants of research use in clinical decision making among physical therapists providing services post-stroke: a cross-sectional study. Implement Sci. 2010;5:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-77 .

Siegel RM, Bien J, Lichtenstein P, Davis J, Khoury JC, Knight JE, et al. A safety-net antibiotic prescription for otitis media: the effects of a PBRN study on patients and practitioners. Clin Pediatr. 2006;45:518–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922806290567 .

Warnecke R, Johnson T, Kaluzny A, Ford L. The community clinical oncology program: its effect on clinical practice. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:336–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Newington L, Wells M, Adonis A, Bolton L, Bolton Saghdaoui L, et al. A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:400. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y .

Chalmers S, Hill J, Connell L, Ackerley S, Kulkarni A, Roddam H. The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:766. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09555-9 .

Shahian DM, McCloskey D, Liu X, Schneider E, Cheng D, Mort EA. The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality. Health Serv Res. 2022;57(3):587–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13947 .

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl EA, Bayene J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354: i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Bramer WM, De Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:531–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 .

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Sys Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00785.x .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. User guide. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf . Accessed 7 July 2024.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 .

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. The relationship between clinical trial network protocol involvement and quality of substance use disorder treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46:232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.021 .

Alotaibi NM, Ibrahim GM, Wang J, Guha D, Mamdani M, Schweizer TA, et al. Neurosurgeon academic impact is associated with clinical outcomes after clipping of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181521 .

Bennett WO, Bird JH, Burrows SA, Counter PR, Reddy VM. Does academic output correlate with better mortality rates in NHS trusts in England? Public Health. 2012;126(Suppl 1):S40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.021 .

Birkmeyer NJ, Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Hillner BE, Birkmeyer JD. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer. 2005;103(3):435–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20785 .

Brown A, Griffiss M. Effect of integrated research programs on health care systems and costs. Mil Med. 1996;161:691–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/161.11.691 .

Carpenter WR, Meyer AM, Wu Y, Qaqish B, Sanoff HK, Goldberg RM, et al. Translating research into practice: the role of provider-based research networks in the diffusion of an evidence-based colon cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2012;50:737–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824ebe13 .

Corrigan MH, Glass HE. Physician participation in clinical studies and subsequent prescribing of new drugs. Pharm Ther. 2005;30(1):60–6.

Google Scholar  

de Arriba-Enriquez J, Sanz-Casado E, Vieta E, Rapado-Castro M, Arango C. Quality of care in psychiatry is related to research activity. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(1): e53. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.16 .

de Lange TS, Roos C, Bloemenkamp KW, Bolte AC, Duvekot JJ, Franssen MT, et al. Impact of a randomized trial on maintenance tocolysis on length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.12.003 .

Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut. 2017;66:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311308 .

Eaton BR, Pugh SL, Bradley JD, Masters G, Kavadi VS, Narayan S, et al. Institutional enrollment and survival among NSCLC patients receiving chemoradiation: NRG oncology radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 0617. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9): djw034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw034 .

Fanaroff AC, Vora AN, Chen AY, Mathews R, Udell JA, Roe MT, et al. Hospital participation in clinical trials for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Am Heart J. 2019;214:184–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2019.05.011 .

Farquhar DR, Masood MM, Lenze NR, Sheth S, Patel SN, Lumley C, et al. Academic affiliation and surgical volume predict survival in head and neck cancer patients receiving surgery. Laryngoscope. 2021;131:E479–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28744 .

Fernández-Domínguez JC, De Pedro-Gómez JE, Jiménez-López R, Romero-Franco N, Bays Moneo AB, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca Á, et al. Physiotherapists’ evidence-based practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: a cross-sectional normative study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(6): e0269460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269460 .

Fields D, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. Implementation of network for the improvement of addiction treatment (NIATx) processes in substance use disorder treatment centers. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;43:354–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9466-7 .

Fong ZV, Chang DC, Hur C, et al. Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: an analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2020;220(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.03.035 .

García-Romero A, Escribano Á, Tribó JA. The impact of health research on length of stay in Spanish public hospitals. Res Policy. 2017;46:591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.006 .

Gilbert GH, Gordan VV, Funkhouser EM, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Qvist V, et al. Caries treatment in a dental practice-based research network: movement toward stated evidence-based treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41:143–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12008 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. NHS Trusts’ clinical research activity and overall CQC performance—Is there a correlation? Public Health. 2015;129:1491–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. The correlation between National Health Service trusts’ clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Public Health. 2018;157:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.022 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ, Badgett RG. Relationship between staff thriving, through engagement and research activity, and hospital-related outcome measures: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Healthc Qual Res. 2021;36(3):128–35.

Kirby K, Brandling J, Robinson M, Thomas M, Voss S, Benger J. The experiences of EMS providers taking part in a large randomised trial of airway management during out of hospital cardiac arrest, and the impact on their views and practice. Results of a survey and telephone interviews. Resuscitation. 2020;149:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.01.034 .

Kirwan CC, Al Sarakbi W, Loncaster J, Chan HY, Thompson AM, Wishart GC. Tumour bed clip localisation for targeted breast radiotherapy: compliance is proportional to trial-related research activity: tumour bed clip localisation in breast radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:158–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.016 .

Levan JM, Brion LP, Wrage LA, Gantz MG, Wyckoff MH, Sánchez PJ, et al. Change in practice after the surfactant, positive pressure and oxygenation randomised trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99:F386–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306057 .

Lin DJ, McConkey CC, Nankivell P, Dunn J, Mehanna H. The impact of institutional clinical trial recruitment versus hospital volume on survival outcomes of patients with head and neck cancer: an analysis of the PET-NECK trial outcomes, UKCRN portfolio, and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. Oral Oncol. 2018;85:40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08.006 .

Litjens RJ, Oude Rengerink K, Danhof NA, Kruitwagen RF, Mol BW. Does recruitment for multicenter clinical trials improve dissemination and timely implementation of their results? A survey study from the Netherlands. Clin Trials. 2013;10:915–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513504150 .

Ljunggren M, Weibull CE, Rosander E, et al. Hospital factors and metastatic surgery in colorectal cancer patients, a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:907. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10005-8 .

Manes E, Tchetchik A, Tobol Y, Durst R, Chodick G. An empirical investigation of “physician congestion” in US University Hospitals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050761 .

Marmor S, Begun J, Abraham J, et al. The impact of center accreditation on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.219 .

McBride R, Leroux B, Lindblad A, Williams OD, Lehmann M, Rindal DB, et al. Measuring the impact of practice-based research networks on member dentists in the Collaboration on Networked Dental and Oral Health Research, CONDOR. J Dent. 2013;41:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.005 .

McCarthy FH, Groeneveld PW, Kobrin D, Mcdermott KM, Wirtalla C, Desai ND. Effect of clinical trial experience on transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8: e002234. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002234 .

McDaniels-Davidson C, Feng CH, Martinez ME, Canchola AJ, Gomez SL, Nodora JN, et al. Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute—Designated cancer centers. Cancer. 2022;128:3479–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34404 .

Merkow RP, Chung JW, Paruch JL, Bentrem DJ. Center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1091–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000542 .

Meyer AM, Reeder-Hayes KE, Liu H, Wheeler SB, Penn D, Weiner BJ, et al. Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks. Med Care. 2013;51:812–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829c8ca4 .

Mold JW, Aspy CB, Smith PD, Zink T, Knox L, Lipman PD, et al. Leveraging practice-based research networks to accelerate implementation and diffusion of chronic kidney disease guidelines in primary care practices: a prospective cohort study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0169-x .

Murimwa GZ, Karalis JD, Meier J, et al. Hospital designations and their impact on guideline-concordant care and survival in pancreatic cancer. Do they matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30:4377–87. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13308-7 .

Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, Poloniecki JD, Hinchliffe RJ, Thompson MM, et al. Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0118253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118253 .

Paulson EC, Mitra N, Sonnad S, Armstrong K, Wirtalla C, Kelz RR, et al. National cancer institute designation predicts improved outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:675–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187a757 .

Penn DC, Chang Y, Meyer AM, Defilippo Mack C, Sanoff HK, Stitzenberg KB, et al. Provider-based research networks may improve early access to innovative colon cancer treatment for African Americans treated in the community. Cancer. 2015;121:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29028 .

Prendergast EA, Perkins S, Engel ME, Cupido B, Francis V, Joachim A, et al. Participation in research improves overall patient management: insights from the global rheumatic heart disease registry (REMEDY). Cardiovasc J Afr. 2018;29:98–105. https://doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2017-054 .

Rai A, Nastoupil LJ, Williams JN, Lipscomb J, Ward KC, Howard DH, et al. Patterns of use and survival outcomes of positron emission tomography for initial staging in elderly follicular lymphoma patients. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58:1570–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2016.1253836 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Bride BE. Implementation of motivational interviewing in substance use disorder treatment: research network participation and organizational compatibility. J Addict Med. 2016;10:402–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000251 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Kovas AE, Mcfarland BH, Roman PM. Impact of research network participation on the adoption of buprenorphine for substance abuse treatment. Addict Behav. 2014;39:889–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.016 .

Rindal DB, Flottemesch TJ, Durand EU, Godlevsky OV, Schmidt AM, Gilbert GH. Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN. Implement Sci. 2014;9:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0177-x .

Robinson TG, Wang X, Durham AC, Ford GA, Liao J, Littlewood S, et al. The National Institute for Health Research Hyperacute Stroke Research Centres and the ENCHANTED trial: the impact of enhanced research infrastructure on trial metrics and patient outcomes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0417-2 .

Rochon J, Du Bois A, Lange T. Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-9 .

Salge TO, Vera A. Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: evidence from English public acute care. Health Care Manag Rev. 2009;34:54–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80 .

Seaburg LA, Wang AT, West CP, Reed DA, Halvorsen AJ, Engstler G, et al. Associations between resident physicians’ publications and clinical performance during residency training. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0543-2 .

Shen M, Liang X, Li L, Wu Y, Yang Y, Zingg R. The association of attending physicians’ publications and patients’ readmission rates: evidence from tertiary hospitals in china using a retrospective data analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159760 .

Siracuse JJ, Goodney PP, Menard MT, Rosenfield K, Van Over M, Hamza T, et al. Participation in a chronic limb threatening ischemia randomized trial is inversely correlated with regional amputation rate in limb threatening ischemia patients. Ann Surg. 2021;274(4):621–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005058 .

Tan HJ, Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Smith AB, Wheeler SB, Carpenter WR, et al. Provider-based research networks and diffusion of surgical technologies among patients with early-stage kidney cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:836–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29144 .

Tchetchik A, Grinstein A, Manes E, Shapira D, Durst R. From research to practice: which research strategy contributes more to clinical excellence? Comparing high-volume versus high-quality biomedical research. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0129259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129259 .

Trusson D, Rowley E, Bramley L. A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e030595. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030595 .

Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Kirby AM, Locke I, Venables K, Yarnold JR, et al. Clinical impact of IMPORT HIGH trial (CRUK/06/003) on breast radiotherapy practices in the United Kingdom. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20150453. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150453 .

Tsang JLY, Binnie A, Duan EH, Johnstone J, Heels-Ansdell D, Reeve B. Academic and community ICUs participating in a critical care randomized trial: a comparison of patient characteristics and trial metrics. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4(11): e0794. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000794 .

Van Der Tuuk K, Koopmans CM, Groen H, Mol BW, Van Pampus MG. Impact of the HYPITAT trial on doctors’ behaviour and prevalence of eclampsia in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2011;118:1658–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03138.x .

Venables K, Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Coles CE, Yarnold JR. Does participation in clinical trials influence the implementation of new techniques? A look at changing techniques in breast radiotherapy in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24:e100–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2012.06.010 .

Wolfson JA, Sun CL, Wyatt LP, Hurria A, Bhatia S. Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: results from a population-based study. Cancer. 2015;121(21):3885–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29576 .

Wuthrick EJ, Zhang Q, Machtay M, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tan PF, Fortin A, et al. Institutional clinical trial accrual volume and survival of patients with head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(2):156–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5218 .

Yawn BP, Pace W, Dietrich A, Bertram S, Kurland M, Graham D, et al. Practice benefit from participating in a practice-based research network study of postpartum depression: a national research network (NRN) report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23:455–64. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090246 .

Young C, Gunasekera H, Kong K, Purcell A, Muthayya S, Vincent F, et al. A case study of enhanced clinical care enabled by Aboriginal health research: the Hearing, EAr health and Language Services (HEALS) project. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12586 .

Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.

Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q. 1990;35(1):128–52.

Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev. 2002;27:185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 .

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 .

Roman PM, Abraham AJ, Rothrauff TC, Knudsen HK. A longitudinal study of organizational formation, innovation adoption, and dissemination activities within the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.008 .

Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, et al. Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program. Cancer. 2010;116:4440–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25248 .

Fennell M, Warneke R. The diffusion of medical innovations: an applied network analysis: environment, development, and public policy and social services. Boston: Springer; 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5436-9 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Peckham S, Eida T, Hashem F, Kendall S. Research engagement and research capacity building: a priority for healthcare organisations in the UK. J Health Organ Manag. 2023;37(3):343–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2021-0436 .

Edelman A, Brown A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. Evaluating research investment and impact at a regional Australian hospital and health service: a programme theory and conceptual framework. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0542-y .

Brown A, Edelman A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. “We’re not providing the best care if we are not on the cutting edge of research”: a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian hospital and health service. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):3000–11. https://doi.org/10.34172/IJHPM.2022.6529 .

San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/ . Accessed 18 Apr 2024.

Ailawadhi S, Advani P, Yang D, Ghosh R, Swaika A, et al. Impact of access to NCI- and NCCN-designated cancer centers on outcomes for multiple myeloma patients: a SEER registry analysis. Cancer. 2016;122:618–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29771 .

Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Diaz A, Moris D, Abbas A, Dillhoff M, et al. Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Am J Surg. 2021;222(3):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.01.015 .

Grant J, Buxton MJ. Economic returns to medical research funding. BMJ Open. 2018;8: e022131. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022131 .

Schlick CJ, Yang AD. Is there value in cancer center accreditation? Am J Surg. 2023;220(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.05.001 .

Hussein M, Pavlova M, Ghalwash M, Groot W. The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1057.

Yoong SL, Bolsewicz K, Reilly K, et al. Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08887-2 .

Soper B, Yaqub O, Hinrichs S, Marjanovich S, Drabble S, Hanney S, et al. CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613499903 .

Kislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implement Sci. 2018;13:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Teresa Jones for her expert advice on the search strategy. The review was completed as partial fulfilment of Belinda Goodenough’s Masters dissertation at King’s College London. In the original full report for our first review [ 3 ], we gratefully acknowledged the valuable help we had received from our expert advisory group. The members included two patient representatives who were consulted at various stages throughout the project, especially around the necessity of having our systematic review focus on the complexities of benefits from research engagement by healthcare organizations and staff, while separate reviews and analyses focussed on the benefits of PPI in health research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 20 Kingsway, London, United Kingdom

Annette Boaz

The Sax Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Belinda Goodenough

Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Stephen Hanney & Bryony Soper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in planning the study. B.G. conducted the searches, with all authors involved in screening and analysis. B.G. produced an initial draft of the paper. The final version of the paper was produced collaboratively by all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Goodenough, B., Hanney, S. et al. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 113 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

Download citation

Received : 14 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical trials
• Healthcare organizations
• Patient outcomes
• Processes of care
• Research engagement
• Systematic review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2024

The impact of study habits and personal factors on the academic achievement performances of medical students

• Mohammed A. Aljaffer 1 ,
• Ahmad H. Almadani 1 ,
• Abdullah S. AlDughaither 2 ,
• Ali A. Basfar 2 ,
• Saad M. AlGhadir 2 ,
• Yahya A. AlGhamdi 2 ,
• Bassam N. AlHubaysh 2 ,
• Osamah A. AlMayouf 2 ,
• Saleh A. AlGhamdi 3 ,
• Tauseef Ahmad 4 &
• Hamza M. Abdulghani 5  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  888 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

61 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic achievement is essential for all students seeking a successful career. Studying habits and routines is crucial in achieving such an ultimate goal.

This study investigates the association between study habits, personal factors, and academic achievement, aiming to identify factors that distinguish academically successful medical students.

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The participants consisted of 1st through 5th-year medical students, with a sample size of 336. The research team collected study data using an electronic questionnaire containing three sections: socio-demographic data, personal characteristics, and study habits.

The study results indicated a statistically significant association between self-fulfillment as a motivation toward studying and academic achievement ( p  = 0.04). The results also showed a statistically significant correlation between recalling recently memorized information and academic achievement ( p  = 0.05). Furthermore, a statistically significant association between preferring the information to be presented in a graphical form rather than a written one and academic achievement was also found ( p  = 0.03). Students who were satisfied with their academic performance had 1.6 times greater chances of having a high-grade point average (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.08).

The results of this study support the available literature, indicating a correlation between study habits and high academic performance. Further multicenter studies are warranted to differentiate between high-achieving students and their peers using qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Educating the students about healthy study habits and enhancing their learning skills would also be of value.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Academic performance is a common indicator used to measure student achievement [ 1 , 2 ]. It is a compound process influenced by many factors, among which is study habits [ 2 , 3 ]. Study habit is defined as different individual behavior in relation to studying, and is a combination of study methods and skills [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Put differently, study habits involve various techniques that would increase motivation and transform the study process into an effective one, thus enhancing learning [ 5 ]. Students’ perspectives and approaches toward studying were found to be the key factors in predicting their academic success [ 6 , 7 ]. However, these learning processes vary from one student to another due to variations in the students’ cognitive processing [ 8 ].

The study habits of students are the regular practices and habits they exhibit during the learning process [ 9 , 10 ]. Over time, several study habits have been developed, such as time management, setting appropriate goals, choosing a comfortable study environment, taking notes effectively, choosing main ideas, and being organized [ 11 ]. Global research shows that study habits impact academic performance and are the most important predictor of it [ 12 ]. It is difficult for medical students to organize and learn a lot of information, and they need to employ study skills to succeed [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 13 ].

Different lifestyle and social factors could affect students’ academic performance. For instance, Jafari et al. found that native students had better study habits compared to dormitory students [ 1 ]. This discrepancy between native and dormitory students was also indicated by Jouhari et al. who illustrated that dormitory students scored lower in attitude, test strategies, choosing main ideas, and concentration [ 10 ]. Regarding sleeping habits, Curcio G et al. found that students with a regular and adequate sleeping pattern had higher Grade Point Average (GPA) scores [ 14 ]. Lifestyle factors, such as watching television and listening to music, were shown to be unremarkable in affecting students’ grades [ 15 , 16 ]. Social media applications, including WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, distract students during learning [ 16 , 17 ].

Motivation was found to be a major factor in students’ academic success. Bonsaksen et al. found that students who chose “to seek meaning” when studying were associated with high GPA scores [ 18 ]. In addition, low scores on “fear of failure” and high scores on “achieving” correlated with a higher GPA [ 8 , 18 ].

Resource-wise, Alzahrani et al. found that 82.7% of students relied on textbooks assigned by the department, while 46.6% mainly relied on the department’s lecture slides [ 19 ]. The study also indicated that 78.8% perceived that the scientific contents of the lectures were adequate [ 19 ]. Another study found that most students relied on the lecture slides (> 83%) along with their notes, followed by educational videos (76.1%), and reference textbooks (46.1%) [ 20 ]. Striking evidence in that study, as well as in another study, indicated that most students tended to avoid textbooks and opted for lecture slides, especially when preparing for exams [ 20 , 21 ].

Several researchers studied the association between different factors and academic performance; however, more is needed to know about this association in the process of education among medical students [ 15 , 20 , 22 ], with some limitations to the conducted studies. Such limitations include the study sample and using self-reported questionnaires, which may generate inaccurate results. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia in particular, the literature concerning the topic remains limited. Since many students are unsatisfied with their performance and seek improvement [ 10 ], the present study was designed and conducted.

Unlike other studies in the region, this study aims to investigate the relationship between study habits and personal factors and measure their influence on academic achievement. The results of this study could raise awareness regarding the effect of study habits and personal factors on students’ performance and would also guide them toward achieving academic success. The study also seeks to identify the factors that distinguish academically successful students from their peers.

Study design, setting, and participants

This observational cross-sectional study, which took place between June and December 2022, was conducted among students attending the College of Medicine at King Saud University (KSU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Its targeted population included all male and female medical students (first to fifth years) attending KSU during the academic year 2021/2022. Whereas, students at other colleges and universities, those who failed to complete the questionnaire, interns (the students who already graduated), and those who were enrolled in the university’s preparatory year, were all excluded from the current study. The sample size was calculated based on a study conducted in 2015 by Lana Al Shawwa [ 15 ]. Using the sample size formula for a single proportion (0.79), the required sample size was 255 using a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. After adding a 20% margin to accommodate non-responses and incomplete responses, the calculated sample size required for this study was 306. However, our research team collected a total of 336 participants for this study to ensure complete representation.

Study instrument

The research team developed and used an electronic questionnaire. The rationale is that no standardized questionnaire measuring the study objectives was found in the literature. However, the questionnaire was tested on a pilot of 15 students to test its clarity and address any possible misconceptions and ambiguity. The study questionnaire was distributed randomly to this cohort, who were asked to fill out the questionnaire. The students reported a complete understanding of the questionnaire’s contents, so the same questionnaire was used without any modifications. The questionnaire, written in English, consisted of three parts. The first part included eleven questions about the socio-demographic status of the participants. The second part contained twenty-one questions examining personal factors such as sleep and caffeine consumption. The last part included twenty-one questions regarding students’ study habits. The questionnaire was constructed based on an ordinal Likert scale which had: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree as possible answers. The questionnaire was sent to participants through email and social media applications like Twitter and WhatsApp to increase the study response. An informed consent that clearly states the study’s purpose was taken from all participants at the beginning of the questionnaire. In addition, all participants were assured that the collected data would be anonymous and confidential. Each participant was represented by a code for the sole purpose of analyzing the data. Furthermore, no incentives or rewards were given to the participants for their participation.

Study variables

Socio-demographic information (such as age, gender, and academic year), and personal factors (such as motivation, sleeping status, caffeine consumption, and self-management) were the independent variables. Study habits such as attendance, individual versus group study, memorization techniques, revision, learning style, and strategies were also independent variables.

Academic achievement refers to a student’s success in gaining knowledge and understanding in various subjects, as well as the ability to apply that knowledge effectively [ 23 ]. It is a measure of the student’s progress throughout the educational journey, encompassing both academic achievements and personal growth [ 3 , 24 ]. Academic achievement is judged based on the student’s GPA or performance score. In this study, students’ GPA scores, awareness, and satisfaction regarding their academic performance were the dependent variables.

We divided the study sample into two groups based on the GPA. We considered students with high GPAs to be exposed (i.e. exposed to the study habits we are investigating), and students with low GPAs to be the control group. The purpose of this study was to determine why an exposed group of students gets high grades and what study factors they adopt. Based on this exposure (high achieving students), we concluded what methods they used to achieve higher grades. Those in the first group had a GPA greater or equal to 4.5 (out of 5), while those in the second group had a GPA less than 4.5. The students’ data were kept confidential and never used for any other purpose.

Data analysis

The data collected were analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistical software for Windows version 24.0. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used to describe the socio-demographic data in a tabular form. Furthermore, data for categorical variables, including different study habits, motivation factors, memorizing and revising factors, and lifestyle factors, were tabulated and analyzed using the odds ratio test. Finally, we calculated the odds ratio statistic and a p-value of 0.05 to report the statistical significance of our results.

Ethical approval and consent to Participate

Before conducting the study, the research team obtained the Ethics Committee Approval from the Institutional Review Board of the College of Medicine, KSU, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (project No. E-22-7044). Participants’ agreement/consent to participate was guaranteed by choosing “agree” after reading the consent form at the beginning of the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and consent was obtained from all participants. The research team carried out all methods following relevant guidelines and regulations.

The total 336 medical students participated in the study. All participants completed the study questionnaire, and there were no missing or incomplete data, with all of them being able to participate. As shown in Table  1 9.3% of participants were between 18 and 20, 44.9% were between the ages of 21 and 22, and 35.8% were 23–28 years old. In the current study, 62.5% of the participants were males and 37.5% were females. The proportion of first-year students was 21.4%, 20.8% of second-year students, 20.8% of third-year students, 18.2% of fourth-year students, and 18.8% of fifth-year students, according to academic year levels. Regarding GPA scores, 36.9% scored 4.75-5 and 32.4% scored 4.5–4.74. 23.8% achieved 4-4.49, 6.5% achieved 3-3.99, and only 0.4% achieved 2.99 or less. Participants lived with their families in 94.6% of cases, with friends in 1.2% of cases, and alone in 4.2% of cases. For smoking habits, 86.3% did not smoke, 11% reported using vapes, 2.1% used cigarettes, and 0.6% used Shisha. 91.4% of the participants did not report any chronic illnesses; however, 8.6% did. In addition, 83% had no mental illness, 8.9% had anxiety, 6% had depression, and 2.1% reported other mental illnesses.

Table  2 shows motivational factors associated with academic performance. There was a clear difference in motivation factors between students with high and low achievement in the current study. Students with high GPAs were 1.67 times more motivated toward their careers (OR = 1.67, p  = 0.09) than those with low GPAs. Furthermore, significant differences were found between those students who had self-fulfillment or ambitions in life they had ~ 2 times higher (OR = 1.93, p  = 0.04) GPA scores than low GPA students. Exam results did not motivate exposed or high GPA students (46%) or control students with low GPA students (41%), but the current study showed test results had little impact on low achiever students (OR = 1.03, p  = 0.88). Furthermore, 72.6% of high achievers were satisfied with their academic performance, while only 41% of low achiever students were satisfied. Therefore, students who were satisfied with their academic performance had 1.6 times greater chances of a higher GPA (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.08). Students who get support and help from those around them are more likely to get high GPAs (OR = 1.1, p  = 0.73) than those who do not receive any support. When students reported feeling a sense of family responsibility, the odds (odds ratio) of their receiving higher grades were 1.15 times higher (OR = 1.15, p  = 0.6) compared to those who did not feel a sense of family responsibility. The p-value, which indicates the level of statistical significance, was 0.6.

Table  3 shows the study habits of higher achiever students and low achiever students. Most of the high-achieving students (79.0%) attended most of the lectures and had 1.6 times higher chances of getting higher grades (OR = 1.6, p  = 0.2) than those who did not attend regular lectures. The current study found that studying alone had no significant impact on academic achievement in either group. However, those students who had studied alone had lower GPAs (OR = 1.07, p  = 0.81). The current study findings reported 29.8% of students walk or stand while studying rather than sit, and they had 1.57 times higher GPA chances compared to students with lower GPAs (OR = 0.73, p  = 0.27). High achievers (54.0%) preferred studying early in the morning, and these students had higher chances of achieving good GPAs (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.28) than low achiever groups of students. The number of students with high achievement (39.5%) went through the lecture before the lesson was taught. These students had 1.08 times higher chances of achieving than low achiever groups of students. Furthermore, students who made a weekly study schedule had 1.3 times higher chances of being good academic achievers than those who did not (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.37). Additionally, high-achieving students paid closer attention to the lecturer (1.2 times higher). In addition, students with high GPAs spent more time studying when exam dates approached (OR = 1.3, p  = 0.58).

Table  4 demonstrates the relationship between memorizing and revising with high and low GPA students. It was found that high achiever students (58.9%) studied lectures daily and had 1.4 times higher chances of achieving high grades (OR = 1.4, p  = 0.16) than the other group. It was found that most of the high achievers (62.1%) skim the lecture beforehand before memorizing it, which led to 1.8 times higher chances of getting good grades in this exam (OR = 1.8, p  = 0.06). One regular activity reported by high GPA students (82.3%) was recalling what had just been memorized. For this recalling technique, we found a significant difference between low-achieving students (OR = 0.8, p  = 0.63) and high-achieving students (OR = 1.83, p  = 0.05). A high achiever student writes notes before speaking out for the memorizing method, which gives 1.2 times greater chances of getting high grades (OR = 1.2, p  = 0.55) than a student who does not write notes. A major difference in the current study was that high GPA achievers (70.2%) revise lectures more frequently than low GPA achievers (57.1%). They had 1.5 times more chances of getting high grades if they practiced and revised this method (OR = 1.5, p  = 0.13).

Table  5 illustrates the relationship between negative lifestyle factors and students’ academic performance. The current study found that students are less likely to get high exam grades when they smoke. Students who smoke cigarettes and those who vape are 1.14 and 1.07 times respectively more likely to have a decrease in GPA than those who do not smoke. Those students with chronic illnesses had 1.22 times higher chances of a downgrade in the exam (OR = 1.22, p  = 0.49). Additionally, students with high GPAs had higher mental pressures (Anxiety = 1.2, Depression = 1.18, and other mental pressures = 1.57) than those with low GPAs.

Learning is a multifaceted process that evolves throughout our lifetimes. The leading indicator that sets students apart is their academic achievement. Hence, it is crucial to investigate the factors that influence it. The present study examined the relationship between different study habits, personal characteristics, and academic achievement among medical students. In medical education, and more so in Saudi Arabia, there needs to be more understanding regarding such vital aspects.

Regarding motivational factors, the present study found some differences between high and low achievers. Students with high GPA scores were more motivated toward their future careers (OR = 1.67, p  = 0.09). The study also indicated that students who had ambitions and sought self-fulfillment were more likely to have high GPA scores, which were statistically significant (OR = 1.93, p  = 0.04). This was consistent with Bin Abdulrahman et al. [ 20 ], who indicated that the highest motivation was self-fulfillment and satisfying family dreams, followed by a high educational level, aspirations to join a high-quality residency program, and high income. Their study also found that few students were motivated by the desire to be regarded as unique students. We hypothesize that this probably goes back to human nature, where a highly rewarding incentive becomes the driving force of our work. Hence, schools should utilize this finding in exploring ways to enhance students’ motivation toward learning.

The present study did not find a significant effect of previous exam results on academic performance (OR = 1.03, p  = 0.88). However, some studies reported that more than half of the high-achieving students admitted that high scores acquired on previous assessments are an important motivational factor [ 15 , 25 , 26 ]. We hypothesize that as students score higher marks, they become pleased and feel confident with their study approach. This finding shows how positive measurable results influence the students’ mentality.

The present study also explored the social environment surrounding medical students. The results indicated that those who were supported by their friends or family were slightly more likely to score higher GPAs (OR = 1.1, p  = 0.73); however, the results did not reach a statistical significance. We hypothesize that a supportive and understanding environment would push the students to be patient and look for a brighter future. Our study results were consistent with previous published studies, which showed an association [ 3 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. We hypothesize that students who spend most of their time with their families had less time to study, which made their study time more valuable. The findings of this study will hopefully raise awareness concerning the precious time that students have each day.

The association of different study habits among medical students with high and low GPAs was also studied in our study. It was noted that the high-achieving students try to attend their lectures compared to the lower achievers. This was in line with the previous published studies, which showed that significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the attendance of lectures, tutorials, practical sessions, and clinical teachings [ 31 , 32 ]. The present study found that most students prefer to study alone, regardless of their level of academic achievement (82.1%). This finding is consistent with the study by Khalid A Bin Abdulrahman et al., which also showed that most students, regardless of their GPA, favored studying alone [ 20 ].

The present study findings suggest that a small number of students (29.8%) prefer to walk or stand while studying rather than sit, with most being high achievers (OR = 1.57, P  = 0.15). A study reported that 40.3% of students with high GPAs seemed to favor a certain posture or body position, such as sitting or lying on the floor [ 15 ]. These contradictory findings might indicate that which position to adopt while studying should come down to personal preference and what feels most comfortable to each student. The present study also found that high achievers are more likely to prefer studying early in the morning (OR = 1.3, P  = 0.28). The authors did not find similar studies investigating this same association in the literature. However, mornings might allow for more focused studying with fewer distractions, which has been shown to be associated with higher achievement in medical students [ 3 , 15 , 33 ].

Our study also found that 39.5% of the academically successful students reviewed pre-work or went through the material before they were taught it (OR = 1.08, p  = 0.75), and 25% were neutral. Similar findings were reported in other studies, showing that academically successful students prepared themselves by doing their pre-work, watching videos, and revising slides [ 3 , 9 , 34 ]. Our study showed that 75% of high-achieving students tend to listen attentively to the lecturer (OR = 1.2, p  = 0.48). Al Shawa et al. found no significant differences between the high achievers and low achievers when talking about attending lectures [ 15 ]. This could be due to the quality of teachers and the environment of the college or university.

Regarding the relationship between memorizing and revising with high and low GPA students, the present study found that students who study lectures daily are more likely to score higher than those who do not (OR = 1.4, p  = 0.16). This finding is consistent with other studies [ 3 , 19 , 35 ]. For skimming lectures beforehand, an appreciable agreement was noted by high GPA students (62.1%), while only (42%) of low GPA students agreed to it. Similarly, previous published studies also found that highlighting and reading the content before memorization were both common among high-achieving students [ 15 , 36 ]. Furthermore, the present study has found recalling what has just been memorized to be statistically significantly associated with high GPA students (OR = 1.83, p  = 0.05). Interestingly, we could not find any study that investigated this as an important factor, which could be justified by the high specificity of this question. Besides, when it comes to writing down/speaking out what has just been memorized, our study has found no recognizable differences between high-achieving students (75%) and low-achieving students (69%), as both categories had remarkably high percentages of reading and writing while studying.

The present study has found no statistical significance between regularly revising the lectures and high GPA ( p  > 0.05), unlike the study conducted by Deborah A. Sleight et al. [ 37 ]. The difference in findings between our study and Deborah A. Sleight et al. might be due to a limitation of our study, namely the similar backgrounds of our participants. Another explanation could be related to curricular differences between the institutions where the two studies were conducted. Moreover, a statistically significant correlation between not preferring the data being presented in a written form instead of a graphical form and high GPA scores have been found in their study ( p  < 0.05). However, a study conducted by Deborah A. Sleight et al. indicated that 66% of high achievers used notes prepared by other classmates compared to 84% of low achievers. Moreover, their study showed that only 59% of high achievers used tables and graphs prepared by others compared to 92% of low achievers. About 63% and 61% of the students in their study reported using self-made study aids for revision and memory aids, respectively [ 37 ].

The present study also examined the effects of smoking and chronic and mental illness, but found no statistical significance; the majority of both groups responded by denying these factors’ presence in their life. A similar finding by Al Shawwa et al. showed no statistical significance of smoking and caffeine consumption between low GPA and high GPA students [ 15 ]. We hypothesize that our findings occurred due to the study’s broad approach to examining such factors rather than delving deeper into them.

High-achieving students’ habits and factors contributing to their academic achievement were explored in the present study. High-achieving students were found to be more motivated and socially supported than their peers. Moreover, students who attended lectures, concentrated during lectures, studied early in the morning, prepared their weekly schedule, and studied more when exams approached were more likely to have high GPA scores. Studying techniques, including skimming before memorizing, writing what was memorized, active recall, and consistent revision, were adopted by high-achievers. To gain deeper insight into students’ strategies, it is recommended that qualitative semi-structured interviews be conducted to understand what distinguishes high-achieving students from their peers. Future studies should also explore differences between public and private university students. Additionally, further research is needed to confirm this study’s findings and provide guidance to all students. Future studies should collect a larger sample size from a variety of universities in order to increase generalizability.

Limitations and recommendations

The present study has some limitations. All the study’s findings indicated possible associations rather than causation; hence, the reader should approach the results of this study with caution. We recommend in-depth longitudinal studies to provide more insight into the different study habits and their impact on academic performance. Another limitation is that the research team created a self-reported questionnaire to address the study objectives, which carries a potential risk of bias. Hence, we recommend conducting interviews and having personal encounters with the study’s participants to reduce the risk of bias and better understand how different factors affect their academic achievement. A third limitation is that the research team only used the GPA scores as indicators of academic achievement. We recommend conducting other studies and investigating factors that cannot be solely reflected by the GPA, such as the student’s clinical performance and skills. Lastly, all participants included in the study share one background and live in the same environment. Therefore, the study’s findings do not necessarily apply to students who do not belong to such a geographic area and point in time. We recommend that future studies consider the sociodemographic and socioeconomic variations that exist among the universities in Saudi Arabia.

Availability of data materials

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

Abbreviations

Grade Point Average

King Saud University

Institutional review board

Statistical package for the social sciences

Jafari H, Aghaei A, Khatony A. Relationship between study habits and academic achievement in students of medical sciences in Kermanshah-Iran. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:637–43.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abid N, Aslam S, Alghamdi AA, Kumar T. Relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English at the secondary level. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1020269.

Abdulghani HM, Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Ahmad F, Ponnamperuma GG, Amin Z. What factors determine academic achievement in high achieving undergraduate medical students? A qualitative study. Med Teach. 2014;36(Suppl 1):S43–48.

Muntean LM, Nireștean A, Sima-Comaniciu A, Mărușteri M, Zăgan CA, Lukacs E. The relationship between personality, motivation and academic performance at Medical students from Romania. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(15).

Reza HM, Alireza HJIJME. Investigating study Habits of Library and Information Sciences Students of Isfahan University and Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 2014, 14:751–757.

Kurtz SM, Silverman JD. The Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation guides: an aid to defining the curriculum and organizing the teaching in communication training programmes. Med Educ. 1996;30(2):83–9.

Pun J, Kong B. An exploratory study of communication training for Chinese medicine practitioners in Hong Kong to integrate patients’ conventional medical history. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023;23(1):10.

İlçin N, Tomruk M, Yeşilyaprak SS, Karadibak D, Savcı S. The relationship between learning styles and academic performance in TURKISH physiotherapy students. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):291.

McKeirnan KC, Colorafi K, Kim AP, Stewart AS, Remsberg CM, Vu M, Bray BS. Study behaviors Associated with Student pharmacists’ academic success in an active Classroom Pharmacy Curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(7):ajpe7695.

Jouhari Z, Haghani F, Changiz T. Assessment of medical students’ learning and study strategies in self-regulated learning. J Adv Med Educ Professionalism. 2016;4(2):72–9.

Google Scholar  

Proctor BE, Prevatt FF, Adams KSS, Reaser A, Petscher Y. Study skills profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling College students. J Coll Student Dev. 2006;47(1):37–51.

Kyauta AMASY, Garba HS. The role of guidance and counseling service on academic performance among students of umar suleiman college of education, Gashua, Yobe State, Nigeria. KIU J Humanit. 2017;2(2):59–66.

Eva KW, Bordage G, Campbell C, Galbraith R, Ginsburg S, Holmboe E, Regehr G. Towards a program of assessment for health professionals: from training into practice. Adv Health Sci Education: Theory Pract. 2016;21(4):897–913.

Curcio G, Ferrara M, De Gennaro L. Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep Med Rev. 2006;10(5):323–37.

Al Shawwa L, Abulaban AA, Abulaban AA, Merdad A, Baghlaf S, Algethami A, Abu-Shanab J, Balkhoyor A. Factors potentially influencing academic performance among medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:65–75.

Ibrahim NK, Baharoon BS, Banjar WF, Jar AA, Ashor RM, Aman AA, Al-Ahmadi JR. Mobile Phone Addiction and its relationship to Sleep Quality and Academic Achievement of Medical students at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J Res Health Sci. 2018;18(3):e00420.

Alkhalaf AM, Tekian A, Park YS. The impact of WhatsApp use on academic achievement among Saudi medical students. Med Teach. 2018;40(sup1):S10–4.

Bonsaksen T, Brown T, Lim HB, Fong K. Approaches to studying predict academic performance in undergraduate occupational therapy students: a cross-cultural study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):76.

Alzahrani HA, Alzahrani OH. Learning strategies of medical students in the surgery department, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2012;3:79–87.

Bin Abdulrahman KA, Khalaf AM, Bin Abbas FB, Alanazi OT. Study habits of highly effective medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:627–33.

Jameel T, Gazzaz ZJ, Baig M, Tashkandi JM, Alharenth NS, Butt NS, Shafique A, Iftikhar R. Medical students’ preferences towards learning resources and their study habits at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):30.

Abdulghani HM, Alrowais NA, Bin-Saad NS, Al-Subaie NM, Haji AM, Alhaqwi AI. Sleep disorder among medical students: relationship to their academic performance. Med Teach. 2012;34(Suppl 1):S37–41.

Hwang G-J, Wang S-Y, Lai C-L. Effects of a social regulation-based online learning framework on students’ learning achievements and behaviors in mathematics. Comput Educ. 2021;160:104031.

Gamage KAA, Dehideniya D, Ekanayake SY. The role of personal values in learning approaches and student achievements. Behav Sci (Basel Switzerland) 2021, 11(7).

Linn Z, Tashiro Y, Morio K, Hori H. Peer evaluations of group work in different years of medical school and academic achievement: how are they related? BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):102.

Avonts M, Michels NR, Bombeke K, Hens N, Coenen S, Vanderveken OM, De Winter BY. Does peer teaching improve academic results and competencies during medical school? A mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):431.

Topor DR, Keane SP, Shelton TL, Calkins SD. Parent involvement and student academic performance: a multiple mediational analysis. J Prev Interv Community. 2010;38(3):183–97.

Veas A, Castejón JL, Miñano P, Gilar-Corbí R. Relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement through metacognitive strategies: a multiple multilevel mediation analysis. Br J Educ Psychol. 2019;89(2):393–411.

Núñez JC, Regueiro B, Suárez N, Piñeiro I, Rodicio ML, Valle A. Student Perception of teacher and parent involvement in Homework and Student Engagement: the mediating role of motivation. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1384.

Abdulghani AH, Ahmad T, Abdulghani HM. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and depression among physical therapists in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):751.

Park KH, Park JH, Kim S, Rhee JA, Kim JH, Ahn YJ, Han JJ, Suh DJ. Students’ perception of the educational environment of medical schools in Korea: findings from a nationwide survey. Korean J Med Educ. 2015;27(2):117–30.

Ahrberg K, Dresler M, Niedermaier S, Steiger A, Genzel L. The interaction between sleep quality and academic performance. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46(12):1618–22.

Dikker S, Haegens S, Bevilacqua D, Davidesco I, Wan L, Kaggen L, McClintock J, Chaloner K, Ding M, West T, et al. Morning brain: real-world neural evidence that high school class times matter. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci. 2020;15(11):1193–202.

Pittenger AL, Dimitropoulos E, Foag J, Bishop D, Panizza S, Bishop JR. Closing the Classroom Theory to practice gap by simulating a Psychiatric Pharmacy Practice Experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(10):7276.

Walck-Shannon EM, Rowell SF, Frey RF. To what extent do Study habits relate to performance? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):ar6.

Abdulghani HM, Alanazi K, Alotaibi R, Alsubeeh NA, Ahmad T, Haque S. Prevalence of potential dropout thoughts and their influential factors among Saudi Medical Students. 2023, 13(1):21582440221146966.

Sleight DA, Mavis BE. Study skills and academic performance among second-Year Medical students in Problem-based learning. Med Educ Online. 2006;11(1):4599.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, for.

support through the Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Mohammed A. Aljaffer & Ahmad H. Almadani

College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abdullah S. AlDughaither, Ali A. Basfar, Saad M. AlGhadir, Yahya A. AlGhamdi, Bassam N. AlHubaysh & Osamah A. AlMayouf

Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Saleh A. AlGhamdi

Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O. Box: 230155, Riyadh, 11321, Saudi Arabia

Tauseef Ahmad

Department of Medical Education and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Hamza M. Abdulghani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception or design: AHA, MAA, and HMA. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: AAB, SMA, ASA, YAA, BNA, OAA and SAA. Drafting the work or revising: TA, AHA, ASA AAB. Final approval of the manuscript: MAA, HMA., AHA, and TA. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tauseef Ahmad .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human ethics and consent to participate declarations

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-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aljaffer, M.A., Almadani, A.H., AlDughaither, A.S. et al. The impact of study habits and personal factors on the academic achievement performances of medical students. BMC Med Educ 24 , 888 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05889-y

Download citation

Received : 26 September 2023

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05889-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical students
• Study habits
• Academic achievement
• Saudi Arabia

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]