the scope of literature review

• Research guides

Writing a Literature Review

Phase 1: scope of review, it's a literature review of what, precisely.

Need to Have a Precise Topic It is essential that one defines a research topic very carefully. For example, it should not be too far-reaching. The following is much too broad:

"Life and Times of Sigmund Freud"

However, this is more focused and specific and, accordingly, a more appropriate topic:

"An Analysis of the Relationship of Freud and Jung in the International Psychoanalytic Association, 1910-1914"

Limitations of Study In specifying precisely one's research topic, one is also specifying appropriate limitations on the research. Limiting, for example, by time, personnel, gender, age, location, nationality, etc. results in a more focused and meaningful topic.  

Scope of the Literature Review It is also important to determine the precise scope of the literature review. For example,

• What exactly will you cover in your review?
• How comprehensive will it be?
• How long? About how many citations will you use?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?
• Will you broaden your search to seek literature in related disciplines?
• Will you confine your reviewed material to English language only or will you include research in other languages too?

In evaluating studies, timeliness is more significant for some subjects than others. Scientists generally need more recent material. However, currency is often less of a factor for scholars in arts/humanities. Research published in 1920 about Plato's philosophy might be more relevant than recent studies.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Phase 2: Finding Information >>
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 2:26 PM
• Subjects: Education , General
• Tags: literature_review , literature_review_in_education

Main Navigation Menu

Writing a literature review.

• Definitions

Determine the scope of your review

A review of what, planning your literature review.

• Finding sources
• Annotating sources
• Organizing the review
• Writing the review
• Practical Tips

The length of the review depends on your objective. 

• Are you writing a research paper as the final project in a specific course?
• Are you writing a senior or honor's capstone project or thesis? 
• Are you writing for an undergraduate or graduate course? 
• Are you writing a master's thesis? 
• Are you writing a dissertation?

The majority of these projects will require a selective examination of the literature.  Discuss the length of your review with your instructor or paper advisor.

• You must have a precise question to study. For example, your question cannot be too broad, nor too narrow. 
• You must understand the limitations of your research. Limiting by time, geographic area, gender, age, and/or nationality are all good ways to develop a more focused topic.
• what will you cover?
• will your coverage be selective or exhaustive?
• are you focusing on a specific theory or methodology; a specific type of research?
• will you include information published in other languages?
• will you include information from related disciplines?

It will take time to locate and review the literature relevant to your research question.  Starting early will allow you sufficient time to gather and review your sources.  The process of writing a literature review normally includes the following elements:

1. Defining your research question

2. Planning the approach to your review and research

3. Searching the literature

4. Analyzing the material you find

5. Organizing the review

6. Writing the review

• << Previous: Definitions
• Next: Finding sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 8:36 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucmo.edu/literaturereview

Online resources available. Physical building closed due to inclement weather

Take the Library Survey and enter to win a prize!

Literature review.

• Introduction to Literature Reviews
• Purpose and Scope
• Types of Lit Reviews
• Finding Published Literature Reviews
• Writing the Lit Review
• Books and Websites

The literature review analyzes relationships and connections among different works. This differs from an annotated bibliography which provides a list and brief description of articles, books, theses, and other documents. The literature review should not merely list and summarize one piece of research after another. 

Through analysis of major works and subsequent scholarship the lit review lays out the evolution of scholarship on a topic and establishes a context for further research. This will help you to establish why the topic is important and place your research in a theoretical context.

A literature review will help you to avoid redundancy in your own research and to identify new problems, possibilities for further research, and to expand upon or ask new questions. The literature review allows you as a researcher to enter into an ongoing conversation with other scholars and researchers.

A literature review may be comprehensive or selective but should examine seminal or principal works and works that have been consequential in the field. The scope of a literature review will vary by assignment and discipline. The literature review may be part of a larger work or a stand-alone article, meaning that it is the entirety of a paper. The literature review may be part of the introduction, or a separate section to a thesis, dissertation, or research report setting up the context for the author's original research.   The literature review:

• Compares and contrasts
• Identifies areas of consensus and dissent
• Reveals gaps or oversights
• Indicates areas needing further research
• Points out trends, themes, approaches, methodologies, theories, and frames of analysis
• Discusses major debates in the field
• Examines methodological or theoretical strengths and weaknesses

The importance of currency (timeliness of information) will vary by discipline and the purpose of the assignment. The sciences are typically more concerned with current research, practice, and findings. For example, in fields like health or medicine the lit review may only draw on recent literature which has been published within 5-10 years. However, inclusion of much older works is often relevant in fields such as the arts, humanities, philosophy, or history.

• << Previous: Introduction to Literature Reviews
• Next: Types of Lit Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 25, 2024 1:43 PM
• URL: https://utopia.ut.edu/literaturereviews

Macdonald-Kelce Library - The University of Tampa - 401 W. Kennedy Blvd. - Tampa, FL 33606 - 813 257-3056 - [email protected] - Accessibility

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).

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin

Trinity Search

Trinity menu.

• Faculties and Schools
• Trinity Courses
• Trinity Research

Writing a Literature Review

• Getting Started

Defining the topic

Limiting the scope.

• Finding the Literature
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Managing Your Research
• Writing the Review
• Systematic Reviews and Other Review Types
• Useful Books
• Useful Videos
• Useful Links
• Commonly Used Terms

Identifying a well-defined research question is the first step for writing a literature review. It should focus on something from the research field that needs to be explored, where there are gaps in the information. This will ensure that your contribution is valuable and that you are providing readers with a different angle or perspective on an issue or problem.

Your topic needs to be given careful consideration. A research question like “why are social networking sites harmful?” is too broad; there will be too much information to write a concise literature review. Change it to “how are online users experiencing or addressing privacy issues on Twitter and Facebook?" and it is more specific. It gives you a niche within the research field to focus on and explore.

Sometimes a broad topic can be narrowed by using one or more extra criteria, which can include:

• population group
• culture/ethnicity
• theoretical framework
• methodology (e.g., qualitative or quantitative, fieldwork/ethnography)

How you narrow the scope can be done in two broad ways, detailed in Developing a Search Strategy :

• add more search strands using AND to give fewer results (see Combining your terms: search operators )
• use "filters" in a database to eliminate results from outside those limits (see Using methodological search filters )
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Finding the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Oct 10, 2023 1:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.tcd.ie/literature-reviews

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

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

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

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

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

But wait – is this the right time?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

1: The Introduction Section

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

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

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

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

2: The Body Section

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

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

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

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3: Methodological

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

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

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

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

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

3: The Conclusion Section

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

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

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

Example: Thematically Structured Review

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

28 Comments

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

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

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

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

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

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, very helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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 19, 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, what is your plagiarism score.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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 19 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.

• 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

Jump to navigation

Cochrane Training

Chapter 2: determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address.

James Thomas, Dylan Kneale, Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan, Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Key Points:

• Systematic reviews should address answerable questions and fill important gaps in knowledge.
• Developing good review questions takes time, expertise and engagement with intended users of the review.
• Cochrane Reviews can focus on broad questions, or be more narrowly defined. There are advantages and disadvantages of each.
• Logic models are a way of documenting how interventions, particularly complex interventions, are intended to ‘work’, and can be used to refine review questions and the broader scope of the review.
• Using priority-setting exercises, involving relevant stakeholders, and ensuring that the review takes account of issues relating to equity can be strategies for ensuring that the scope and focus of reviews address the right questions.

Cite this chapter as: Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Bhaumik S. Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

2.1 Rationale for well-formulated questions

As with any research, the first and most important decision in preparing a systematic review is to determine its focus. This is best done by clearly framing the questions the review seeks to answer. The focus of any Cochrane Review should be on questions that are important to people making decisions about health or health care. These decisions will usually need to take into account both the benefits and harms of interventions (see MECIR Box 2.1.a ). Good review questions often take time to develop, requiring engagement with not only the subject area, but with a wide group of stakeholders (Section 2.4.2 ).

Well-formulated questions will guide many aspects of the review process, including determining eligibility criteria, searching for studies, collecting data from included studies, structuring the syntheses and presenting findings (Cooper 1984, Hedges 1994, Oliver et al 2017) . In Cochrane Reviews, questions are stated broadly as review ‘Objectives’, and operationalized in terms of the studies that will be eligible to answer those questions as ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. As well as focusing review conduct, the contents of these sections are used by readers in their initial assessments of whether the review is likely to be directly relevant to the issues they face.

The FINER criteria have been proposed as encapsulating the issues that should be addressed when developing research questions. These state that questions should be F easible, I nteresting, N ovel, E thical, and R elevant (Cummings et al 2007). All of these criteria raise important issues for consideration at the outset of a review and should be borne in mind when questions are formulated.

A feasible review is one that asks a question that the author team is capable of addressing using the evidence available. Issues concerning the breadth of a review are discussed in Section 2.3.1 , but in terms of feasibility it is important not to ask a question that will result in retrieving unmanageable quantities of information; up-front scoping work will help authors to define sensible boundaries for their reviews. Likewise, while it can be useful to identify gaps in the evidence base, review authors and stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of asking a question that may not be answerable using the existing evidence (i.e. that will result in an ‘empty’ review, see also Section 2.5.3 ).

Embarking on a review that authors are interested in is important because reviews are a significant undertaking and review authors need sufficient commitment to see the work through to its conclusion.

A novel review will address a genuine gap in knowledge, so review authors should be aware of any related or overlapping reviews. This reduces duplication of effort, and also ensures that authors understand the wider research context to which their review will contribute. Authors should check for pre-existing syntheses in the published research literature and also for ongoing reviews in the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews before beginning their own review.

Given the opportunity cost involved in undertaking an activity as demanding as a systematic review, authors should ensure that their work is relevant by: (i) involving relevant stakeholders in defining its focus and the questions it will address; and (ii) writing up the review in such a way as to facilitate the translation of its findings to inform decisions. The GRADE framework aims to achieve this, and should be considered throughout the review process, not only when it is being written up (see Chapter 14 and Chapter 15 ).

Consideration of opportunity costs is also relevant in terms of the ethics of conducting a review, though ethical issues should also be considered primarily in terms of the questions that are prioritized for answering and the way that they are framed. Research questions are often not value-neutral, and the way that a given problem is approached can have political implications which can result in, for example, the widening of health inequalities (whether intentional or not). These issues are explored in Section 2.4.3 and Chapter 16 .

MECIR Box 2.1.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

2.2 Aims of reviews of interventions

Systematic reviews can address any question that can be answered by a primary research study. This Handbook focuses on a subset of all possible review questions: the impact of intervention(s) implemented within a specified human population. Even within these limits, systematic reviews examining the effects of intervention(s) can vary quite markedly in their aims. Some will focus specifically on evidence of an effect of an intervention compared with a specific alternative, whereas others may examine a range of different interventions. Reviews that examine multiple interventions and aim to identify which might be the most effective can be broader and more challenging than those looking at single interventions. These can also be the most useful for end users, where decision making involves selecting from a number of intervention options. The incorporation of network meta-analysis as a core method in this edition of the Handbook (see Chapter 11 ) reflects the growing importance of these types of reviews.

As well as looking at the balance of benefit and harm that can be attributed to a given intervention, reviews within the ambit of this Handbook might also aim to investigate the relationship between the size of an intervention effect and other characteristics, such as aspects of the population, the intervention itself, how the outcome is measured, or the methodology of the primary research studies included. Such approaches might be used to investigate which components of multi-component interventions are more or less important or essential (and when). While it is not always necessary to know how an intervention achieves its effect for it to be useful, many reviews will aim to articulate an intervention’s mechanisms of action (see Section 2.5.1 ), either by making this an explicit aim of the review itself (see Chapter 17 and Chapter 21 ), or when describing the scope of the review. Understanding how an intervention works (or is intended to work) can be an important aid to decision makers in assessing the applicability of the review to their situation. These investigations can be assisted by the incorporation of results from process evaluations conducted alongside trials (see Chapter 21 ). Further, many decisions in policy and practice are at least partially constrained by the resource available, so review authors often need to consider the economic context of interventions (see Chapter 20 ).

2.3 Defining the scope of a review question

Studies comparing healthcare interventions, notably randomized trials, use the outcomes of participants to compare the effects of different interventions. Statistical syntheses (e.g. meta-analysis) focus on comparisons of interventions, such as a new intervention versus a control intervention (which may represent conditions of usual practice or care), or the comparison of two competing interventions. Throughout the Handbook we use the terminology experimental intervention versus comparator intervention. This implies a need to identify one of the interventions as experimental, and is used only for convenience since all methods apply to both controlled and head-to-head comparisons. The contrast between the outcomes of two groups treated differently is known as the ‘effect’, the ‘treatment effect’ or the ‘intervention effect’; we generally use the last of these throughout the Handbook .

A statement of the review’s objectives should begin with a precise statement of the primary objective, ideally in a single sentence ( MECIR Box 2.3.a ). Where possible the style should be of the form ‘To assess the effects of [ intervention or comparison ] for [ health problem ] in [ types of people, disease or problem and setting if specified ]’. This might be followed by one or more secondary objectives, for example relating to different participant groups, different comparisons of interventions or different outcome measures. The detailed specification of the review question(s) requires consideration of several key components (Richardson et al 1995, Counsell 1997) which can often be encapsulated by the ‘PICO’ mnemonic, an acronym for P opulation, I ntervention, C omparison(s) and O utcome. Equal emphasis in addressing, and equal precision in defining, each PICO component is not necessary. For example, a review might concentrate on competing interventions for a particular stage of breast cancer, with stage and severity of the disease being defined very precisely; or alternately focus on a particular drug for any stage of breast cancer, with the treatment formulation being defined very precisely.

Throughout the Handbook we make a distinction between three different stages in the review at which the PICO construct might be used. This division is helpful for understanding the decisions that need to be made:

• The review PICO (planned at the protocol stage) is the PICO on which eligibility of studies is based (what will be included and what excluded from the review).
• The PICO for each synthesis (also planned at the protocol stage) defines the question that each specific synthesis aims to answer, determining how the synthesis will be structured, specifying planned comparisons (including intervention and comparator groups, any grouping of outcome and population subgroups).
• The PICO of the included studies (determined at the review stage) is what was actually investigated in the included studies.

Reaching the point where it is possible to articulate the review’s objectives in the above form – the review PICO – requires time and detailed discussion between potential authors and users of the review. It is important that those involved in developing the review’s scope and questions have a good knowledge of the practical issues that the review will address as well as the research field to be synthesized. Developing the questions is a critical part of the research process. As such, there are methodological issues to bear in mind, including: how to determine which questions are most important to answer; how to engage stakeholders in question formulation; how to account for changes in focus as the review progresses; and considerations about how broad (or narrow) a review should be.

MECIR Box 2.3 . a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

2.3.1 Broad versus narrow reviews

The questions addressed by a review may be broad or narrow in scope. For example, a review might address a broad question regarding whether antiplatelet agents in general are effective in preventing all thrombotic events in humans. Alternatively, a review might address whether a particular antiplatelet agent, such as aspirin, is effective in decreasing the risks of a particular thrombotic event, stroke, in elderly persons with a previous history of stroke. Increasingly, reviews are becoming broader, aiming, for example, to identify which intervention – out of a range of treatment options – is most effective, or to investigate how an intervention varies depending on implementation and participant characteristics.

Overviews of reviews (see  Chapter V ), in which multiple reviews are summarized, can be one way of addressing the need for breadth when synthesizing the evidence base, since they can summarize multiple reviews of different interventions for the same condition, or multiple reviews of the same intervention for different types of participants. It may be considered desirable to plan a series of reviews with a relatively narrow scope, alongside an Overview to summarize their findings. Alternatively, it may be more useful – particularly given the growth in support for network meta-analysis – to combine comparisons of different treatment options within the same review (see Chapter 11 ). When deciding whether or not an overview might be the most appropriate approach, review authors should take account of the breadth of the question being asked and the resources available. Some questions are simply too broad for a review of all relevant primary research to be practicable, and if a field has sufficient high-quality reviews, then the production of another review of primary research that duplicates the others might not be a sensible use of resources.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of broad and narrow reviews are summarized in Table 2.3.a . While having a broad scope in terms of the range of participants has the potential to increase generalizability, the extent to which findings are ultimately applicable to broader (or different) populations will depend on the participants who have actually been recruited into research studies. Likewise, heterogeneity can be a disadvantage when the expectation is for homogeneity of effects between studies, but an advantage when the review question seeks to understand differential effects (see Chapter 10 ).A distinction should be drawn between the scope of a review and the precise questions within, since it is possible to have a broad review that addresses quite narrow questions. In the antiplatelet agents for preventing thrombotic events example, a systematic review with a broad scope might include all available treatments. Rather than combining all the studies into one comparison though, specific treatments would be compared with one another in separate comparisons, thus breaking a heterogeneous set of treatments into narrower, more homogenous groups. This relates to the three levels of PICO, outlined in Section 2.3 . The review PICO defines the broad scope of the review, and the PICO for comparison defines the specific treatments that will be compared with one another; Chapter 3 elaborates on the use of PICOs.

In practice, a Cochrane Review may start (or have started) with a broad scope, and be divided up into narrower reviews as evidence accumulates and the original review becomes unwieldy. This may be done for practical and logistical reasons, for example to make updating easier as well as to make it easier for readers to see which parts of the evidence base are changing. Individual review authors must decide if there are instances where splitting a broader focused review into a series of more narrowly focused reviews is appropriate and implement appropriate methods to achieve this. If a major change is to be undertaken, such as splitting a broad review into a series of more narrowly focused reviews, a new protocol must be written for each of the component reviews that documents the eligibility criteria for each one.

Ultimately, the selected breadth of a review depends upon multiple factors including perspectives regarding a question’s relevance and potential impact; supporting theoretical, biologic and epidemiological information; the potential generalizability and validity of answers to the questions; and available resources. As outlined in Section 2.4.2 , authors should consider carefully the needs of users of the review and the context(s) in which they expect the review to be used when determining the most optimal scope for their review.

Table 2.3.a Some advantages and disadvantages of broad versus narrow reviews

2.3.2 ‘Lumping’ versus ‘splitting’

It is important not to confuse the issue of the breadth of the review (determined by the review PICO) with concerns about between-study heterogeneity and the legitimacy of combining results from diverse studies in the same analysis (determined by the PICOs for comparison).

Broad reviews have been criticized as ‘mixing apples and oranges’, and one of the inventors of meta-analysis, Gene Glass, has responded “Of course it mixes apples and oranges… comparing apples and oranges is the only endeavour worthy of true scientists; comparing apples to apples is trivial” (Glass 2015). In fact, the two concepts (‘broad reviews’ and ‘mixing apples and oranges’) are different issues. Glass argues that broad reviews, with diverse studies, provide the opportunity to ask interesting questions about the reasons for differential intervention effects.

The ‘apples and oranges’ critique refers to the inappropriate mixing of studies within a single comparison, where the purpose is to estimate an average effect. In situations where good biologic or sociological evidence suggests that various formulations of an intervention behave very differently or that various definitions of the condition of interest are associated with markedly different effects of the intervention, the uncritical aggregation of results from quite different interventions or populations/settings may well be questionable.

Unfortunately, determining the situations where studies are similar enough to combine with one another is not always straightforward, and it can depend, to some extent, on the question being asked. While the decision is sometimes characterized as ‘lumping’ (where studies are combined in the same analysis) or ‘splitting’ (where they are not) (Squires et al 2013), it is better to consider these issues on a continuum, with reviews that have greater variation in the types of included interventions, settings and populations, and study designs being towards the ‘lumped’ end, and those that include little variation in these elements being towards the ‘split’ end (Petticrew and Roberts 2006).

While specification of the review PICO sets the boundary for the inclusion and exclusion of studies, decisions also need to be made when planning the PICO for the comparisons to be made in the analysis as to whether they aim to address broader (‘lumped’) or narrower (‘split’) questions (Caldwell and Welton 2016). The degree of ‘lumping’ in the comparisons will be primarily driven by the review’s objectives, but will sometimes be dictated by the availability of studies (and data) for a particular comparison (see Chapter 9 for discussion of the latter). The former is illustrated by a Cochrane Review that examined the effects of newer-generation antidepressants for depressive disorders in children and adolescents (Hetrick et al 2012).

Newer-generation antidepressants include multiple different compounds (e.g. paroxetine, fluoxetine). The objectives of this review were to (i) estimate the overall effect of newer-generation antidepressants on depression, (ii) estimate the effect of each compound, and (iii) examine whether the compound type and age of the participants (children versus adolescents) is associated with the intervention effect. Objective (i) addresses a broad, ‘in principle’ (Caldwell and Welton 2016), question of whether newer-generation antidepressants improve depression, where the different compounds are ‘lumped’ into a single comparison. Objective (ii) seeks to address narrower, ‘split’, questions that investigate the effect of each compound on depression separately. Answers to both questions can be identified by setting up separate comparisons for each compound, or by subgrouping the ‘lumped’ comparison by compound ( Chapter 10, Section 10.11.2 ). Objective (iii) seeks to explore factors that explain heterogeneity among the intervention effects, or equivalently, whether the intervention effect varies by the factor. This can be examined using subgroup analysis or meta-regression ( Chapter 10, Section 10.11 ) but, in the case of intervention types, is best achieved using network meta-analysis (see Chapter 11 ).

There are various advantages and disadvantages to bear in mind when defining the PICO for the comparison and considering whether ‘lumping’ or ‘splitting’ is appropriate. Lumping allows for the investigation of factors that may explain heterogeneity. Results from these investigations may provide important leads as to whether an intervention operates differently in, for example, different populations (such as in children and adolescents in the example above). Ultimately, this type of knowledge is useful for clinical decision making. However, lumping is likely to introduce heterogeneity, which will not always be explained by a priori specified factors, and this may lead to a combined effect that is clinically difficult to interpret and implement. For example, when multiple intervention types are ‘lumped’ in one comparison (as in objective (i) above), and there is unexplained heterogeneity, the combined intervention effect would not enable a clinical decision as to which intervention should be selected. Splitting comparisons carries its own risk of there being too few studies to yield a useful synthesis. Inevitably, some degree of aggregation across the PICO elements is required for a meta-analysis to be undertaken (Caldwell and Welton 2016).

2.4 Ensuring the review addresses the right questions

Since systematic reviews are intended for use in healthcare decision making, review teams should ensure not only the application of robust methodology, but also that the review question is meaningful for healthcare decision making. Two approaches are discussed below:

• Using results from existing research priority-setting exercises to define the review question.
• In the absence of, or in addition to, existing research priority-setting exercises, engaging with stakeholders to define review questions and establish their relevance to policy and practice.

2.4.1 Using priority-setting exercises to define review questions

A research priority-setting exercise is a “collective activity for deciding which uncertainties are most worth trying to resolve through research; uncertainties considered may be problems to be understood or solutions to be developed or tested; across broad or narrow areas” (Sandy Oliver, referenced in Nasser 2018). Using research priority-setting exercises to define the scope of a review helps to prevent the waste of scarce resources for research by making the review more relevant to stakeholders (Chalmers et al 2014).

Research priority setting is always conducted in a specific context, setting and population with specific principles, values and preferences (which should be articulated). Different stakeholders’ interpretation of the scope and purpose of a ‘research question’ might vary, resulting in priorities that might be difficult to interpret. Researchers or review teams might find it necessary to translate the research priorities into an answerable PICO research question format, and may find it useful to recheck the question with the stakeholder groups to determine whether they have accurately reflected their intentions.

While Cochrane Review teams are in most cases reviewing the effects of an intervention with a global scope, they may find that the priorities identified by important stakeholders (such as the World Health Organization or other organizations or individuals in a representative health system) are informative in planning the review. Review authors may find that differences between different stakeholder groups’ views on priorities and the reasons for these differences can help them to define the scope of the review. This is particularly important for making decisions about excluding specific populations or settings, or being inclusive and potentially conducting subgroup analyses.

Whenever feasible, systematic reviews should be based on priorities identified by key stakeholders such as decision makers, patients/public, and practitioners. Cochrane has developed a list of priorities for reviews in consultation with key stakeholders, which is available on the Cochrane website. Issues relating to equity (see Chapter 16 and Section 2.4.3 ) need to be taken into account when conducting and interpreting the results from priority-setting exercises. Examples of materials to support these processes are available (Viergever et al 2010, Nasser et al 2013, Tong et al 2017).

The results of research priority-setting exercises can be searched for in electronic databases and via websites of relevant organizations. Examples are: James Lind Alliance , World Health Organization, organizations of health professionals including research disciplines, and ministries of health in different countries (Viergever 2010). Examples of search strategies for identifying research priority-setting exercises are available (Bryant et al 2014, Tong et al 2015).

Other sources of questions are often found in ‘implications for future research’ sections of articles in journals and clinical practice guidelines. Some guideline developers have prioritized questions identified through the guideline development process (Sharma et al 2018), although these priorities will be influenced by the needs of health systems in which different guideline development teams are working.

2.4.2 Engaging stakeholders to help define the review questions

In the absence of a relevant research priority-setting exercise, or when a systematic review is being conducted for a very specific purpose (for example, commissioned to inform the development of a guideline), researchers should work with relevant stakeholders to define the review question. This practice is especially important when developing review questions for studying the effectiveness of health systems and policies, because of the variability between countries and regions; the significance of these differences may only become apparent through discussion with the stakeholders.

The stakeholders for a review could include consumers or patients, carers, health professionals of different kinds, policy decision makers and others ( Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 ). Identifying the stakeholders who are critical to a particular question will depend on the question, who the answer is likely to affect, and who will be expected to implement the intervention if it is found to be effective (or to discontinue it if not).

Stakeholder engagement should, optimally, be an ongoing process throughout the life of the systematic review, from defining the question to dissemination of results (Keown et al 2008). Engaging stakeholders increases relevance, promotes mutual learning, improves uptake and decreases research waste (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1 and Section 1.3.2 ). However, because such engagement can be challenging and resource intensive, a one-off engagement process to define the review question might only be possible. Review questions that are conceptualized and refined by multiple stakeholders can capture much of the complexity that should be addressed in a systematic review.

2.4.3 Considering issues relating to equity when defining review questions

Deciding what should be investigated, who the participants should be, and how the analysis will be carried out can be considered political activities, with the potential for increasing or decreasing inequalities in health. For example, we now know that well-intended interventions can actually widen inequalities in health outcomes since researchers have chosen to investigate this issue (Lorenc et al 2013). Decision makers can now take account of this knowledge when planning service provision. Authors should therefore consider the potential impact on disadvantaged groups of the intervention(s) that they are investigating on disadvantaged groups, and whether socio-economic inequalities in health might be affected depending on whether or how they are implemented.

Health equity is the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health (Whitehead 1992). Health inequity may be experienced across characteristics defined by PROGRESS-Plus (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital, and other characteristics (‘Plus’) such as sexual orientation, age, and disability) (O’Neill et al 2014). Issues relating to health equity should be considered when review questions are developed ( MECIR Box 2.4.a ). Chapter 16 presents detailed guidance on this issue for review authors.

MECIR Box 2.4 . a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

2.5 Methods and tools for structuring the review

It is important for authors to develop the scope of their review with care: without a clear understanding of where the review will contribute to existing knowledge – and how it will be used – it may be at risk of conceptual incoherence. It may mis-specify critical elements of how the intervention(s) interact with the context(s) within which they operate to produce specific outcomes, and become either irrelevant or possibly misleading. For example, in a systematic review about smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy, it was essential for authors to take account of the way that health service provision has changed over time. The type and intensity of ‘usual care’ in more recent evaluations was equivalent to the interventions being evaluated in older studies, and the analysis needed to take this into account. This review also found that the same intervention can have different effects in different settings depending on whether its materials are culturally appropriate in each context (Chamberlain et al 2017).

In order to protect the review against conceptual incoherence and irrelevance, review authors need to spend time at the outset developing definitions for key concepts and ensuring that they are clear about the prior assumptions on which the review depends. These prior assumptions include, for example, why particular populations should be considered inside or outside the review’s scope; how the intervention is thought to achieve its effect; and why specific outcomes are selected for evaluation. Being clear about these prior assumptions also requires review authors to consider the evidential basis for these assumptions and decide for themselves which they can place more or less reliance on. When considered as a whole, this initial conceptual and definitional work states the review’s conceptual framework . Each element of the review’s PICO raises its own definitional challenges, which are discussed in detail in the Chapter 3 .

In this section we consider tools that may help to define the scope of the review and the relationships between its key concepts; in particular, articulating how the intervention gives rise to the outcomes selected. In some situations, long sequences of events are expected to occur between an intervention being implemented and an outcome being observed. For example, a systematic review examining the effects of asthma education interventions in schools on children’s health and well-being needed to consider: the interplay between core intervention components and their introduction into differing school environments; different child-level effect modifiers; how the intervention then had an impact on the knowledge of the child (and their family); the child’s self-efficacy and adherence to their treatment regime; the severity of their asthma; the number of days of restricted activity; how this affected their attendance at school; and finally, the distal outcomes of education attainment and indicators of child health and well-being (Kneale et al 2015).

Several specific tools can help authors to consider issues raised when defining review questions and planning their review; these are also helpful when developing eligibility criteria and classifying included studies. These include the following.

• Taxonomies: hierarchical structures that can be used to categorize (or group) related interventions, outcomes or populations.
• Generic frameworks for examining and structuring the description of intervention characteristics (e.g. TIDieR for the description of interventions (Hoffmann et al 2014), iCAT_SR for describing multiple aspects of complexity in systematic reviews (Lewin et al 2017)).
• Core outcome sets for identifying and defining agreed outcomes that should be measured for specific health conditions (described in more detail in Chapter 3 ).

Unlike these tools, which focus on particular aspects of a review, logic models provide a framework for planning and guiding synthesis at the review level (see Section 2.5.1 ).

2.5.1 Logic models

Logic models (sometimes referred to as conceptual frameworks or theories of change) are graphical representations of theories about how interventions work. They depict intervention components, mechanisms (pathways of action), outputs, and outcomes as sequential (although not necessarily linear) chains of events. Among systematic review authors, they were originally proposed as a useful tool when working with evaluations of complex social and population health programmes and interventions, to conceptualize the pathways through which interventions are intended to change outcomes (Anderson et al 2011).

In reviews where intervention complexity is a key consideration (see Chapter 17 ), logic models can be particularly helpful. For example, in a review of psychosocial group interventions for those with HIV, a logic model was used to show how the intervention might work (van der Heijden et al 2017). The review authors depicted proximal outcomes, such as self-esteem, but chose only to include psychological health outcomes in their review. In contrast, Bailey and colleagues included proximal outcomes in their review of computer-based interventions for sexual health promotion using a logic model to show how outcomes were grouped (Bailey et al 2010). Finally, in a review of slum upgrading, a logic model showed the broad range of interventions and their interlinkages with health and socio-economic outcomes (Turley et al 2013), and enabled the review authors to select a specific intervention category (physical upgrading) on which to focus the review. Further resources provide further examples of logic models, and can help review authors develop and use logic models (Anderson et al 2011, Baxter et al 2014, Kneale et al 2015, Pfadenhauer et al 2017, Rohwer et al 2017).

Logic models can vary in their emphasis, with a distinction sometimes made between system-based and process-oriented logic models (Rehfuess et al 2018). System-based logic models have particular value in examining the complexity of the system (e.g. the geographical, epidemiological, political, socio-cultural and socio-economic features of a system), and the interactions between contextual features, participants and the intervention (see Chapter 17 ). Process-oriented logic models aim to capture the complexity of causal pathways by which the intervention leads to outcomes, and any factors that may modify intervention effects. However, this is not a crisp distinction; the two types are interrelated; with some logic models depicting elements of both systems and process models simultaneously.

The way that logic models can be represented diagrammatically (see Chapter 17 for an example) provides a valuable visual summary for readers and can be a communication tool for decision makers and practitioners. They can aid initially in the development of a shared understanding between different stakeholders of the scope of the review and its PICO, helping to support decisions taken throughout the review process, from developing the research question and setting the review parameters, to structuring and interpreting the results. They can be used in planning the PICO elements of a review as well as for determining how the synthesis will be structured (i.e. planned comparisons, including intervention and comparator groups, and any grouping of outcome and population subgroups). These models may help review authors specify the link between the intervention, proximal and distal outcomes, and mediating factors. In other words, they depict the intervention theory underpinning the synthesis plan.

Anderson and colleagues note the main value of logic models in systematic review as (Anderson et al 2011):

• refining review questions;
• deciding on ‘lumping’ or ‘splitting’ a review topic;
• identifying intervention components;
• defining and conducting the review;
• identifying relevant study eligibility criteria;
• guiding the literature search strategy;
• explaining the rationale behind surrogate outcomes used in the review;
• justifying the need for subgroup analyses (e.g. age, sex/gender, socio-economic status);
• making the review relevant to policy and practice;
• structuring the reporting of results;
• illustrating how harms and feasibility are connected with interventions; and
• interpreting results based on intervention theory and systems thinking (see Chapter 17 ).

Logic models can be useful in systematic reviews when considering whether failure to find a beneficial effect of an intervention is due to a theory failure, an implementation failure, or both (see Chapter 17 and Cargo et al 2018). Making a distinction between implementation and intervention theory can help to determine whether and how the intervention interacts with (and potentially changes) its context (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 17 for further discussion of context). This helps to elucidate situations in which variations in how the intervention is implemented have the potential to affect the integrity of the intervention and intended outcomes.

Given their potential value in conceptualizing and structuring a review, logic models are increasingly published in review protocols. Logic models may be specified a priori and remain unchanged throughout the review; it might be expected, however, that the findings of reviews produce evidence and new understandings that could be used to update the logic model in some way (Kneale et al 2015). Some reviews take a more staged approach, pre-specifying points in the review process where the model may be revised on the basis of (new) evidence (Rehfuess et al 2018) and a staged logic model can provide an efficient way to report revisions to the synthesis plan. For example, in a review of portion, package and tableware size for changing selection or consumption of food and other products, the authors presented a logic model that clearly showed changes to their original synthesis plan (Hollands et al 2015).

It is preferable to seek out existing logic models for the intervention and revise or adapt these models in line with the review focus, although this may not always be possible. More commonly, new models are developed starting with the identification of outcomes and theorizing the necessary pre-conditions to reach those outcomes. This process of theorizing and identifying the steps and necessary pre-conditions continues, working backwards from the intended outcomes, until the intervention itself is represented. As many mechanisms of action are invisible and can only be ‘known’ through theory, this process is invaluable in exposing assumptions as to how interventions are thought to work; assumptions that might then be tested in the review. Logic models can be developed with stakeholders (see Section 2.5.2 ) and it is considered good practice to obtain stakeholder input in their development.

Logic models are representations of how interventions are intended to ‘work’, but they can also provide a useful basis for thinking through the unintended consequences of interventions and identifying potential adverse effects that may need to be captured in the review (Bonell et al 2015). While logic models provide a guiding theory of how interventions are intended to work, critiques exist around their use, including their potential to oversimplify complex intervention processes (Rohwer et al 2017). Here, contributions from different stakeholders to the development of a logic model may be able to articulate where complex processes may occur; theorizing unintended intervention impacts; and the explicit representation of ambiguity within certain parts of the causal chain where new theory/explanation is most valuable.

2.5.2 Changing review questions

While questions should be posed in the protocol before initiating the full review, these questions should not prevent exploration of unexpected issues. Reviews are analyses of existing data that are constrained by previously chosen study populations, settings, intervention formulations, outcome measures and study designs. It is generally not possible to formulate an answerable question for a review without knowing some of the studies relevant to the question, and it may become clear that the questions a review addresses need to be modified in light of evidence accumulated in the process of conducting the review.

Although a certain fluidity and refinement of questions is to be expected in reviews as a fuller understanding of the evidence is gained, it is important to guard against bias in modifying questions. Data-driven questions can generate false conclusions based on spurious results. Any changes to the protocol that result from revising the question for the review should be documented at the beginning of the Methods section. Sensitivity analyses may be used to assess the impact of changes on the review findings (see Chapter 10, Section 10.14 ). When refining questions it is useful to ask the following questions.

• What is the motivation for the refinement?
• Could the refinement have been influenced by results from any of the included studies?
• Does the refined question require a modification to the search strategy and/or reassessment of any decisions regarding study eligibility?
• Are data collection methods appropriate to the refined question?
• Does the refined question still meet the FINER criteria discussed in Section 2.1 ?

2.5.3 Building in contingencies to deal with sparse data

The ability to address the review questions will depend on the maturity and validity of the evidence base. When few studies are identified, there will be limited opportunity to address the question through an informative synthesis. In anticipation of this scenario, review authors may build contingencies into their protocol analysis plan that specify grouping (any or multiple) PICO elements at a broader level; thus potentially enabling synthesis of a larger number of studies. Broader groupings will generally address a less specific question, for example:

• ‘the effect of any antioxidant supplement on …’ instead of ‘the effect of vitamin C on …’;
• ‘the effect of sexual health promotion on biological outcomes ’ instead of ‘the effect of sexual health promotion on sexually transmitted infections ’; or
• ‘the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy in children and adolescents on …’ instead of ‘the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy in children on …’.

However, such broader questions may be useful for identifying important leads in areas that lack effective interventions and for guiding future research. Changes in the grouping may affect the assessment of the certainty of the evidence (see Chapter 14 ).

2.5.4 Economic data

Decision makers need to consider the economic aspects of an intervention, such as whether its adoption will lead to a more efficient use of resources. Economic data such as resource use, costs or cost-effectiveness (or a combination of these) may therefore be included as outcomes in a review. It is useful to break down measures of resource use and costs to the level of specific items or categories. It is helpful to consider an international perspective in the discussion of costs. Economics issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 20 .

2.6 Chapter information

Authors: James Thomas, Dylan Kneale, Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan, Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Acknowledgements: This chapter builds on earlier versions of the Handbook . Mona Nasser, Dan Fox and Sally Crowe contributed to Section 2.4 ; Hilary J Thomson contributed to Section 2.5.1 .

Funding: JT and DK are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Barts Health NHS Trust. JEM is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Career Development Fellowship (1143429). SEB’s position is supported by the NHMRC Cochrane Collaboration Funding Program. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or the NHMRC.

2.7 References

Anderson L, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Armstrong R, Ueffing E, Baker P, Francis D, Tugwell P. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2011; 2 : 33–42.

Bailey JV, Murray E, Rait G, Mercer CH, Morris RW, Peacock R, Cassell J, Nazareth I. Interactive computer-based interventions for sexual health promotion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010; 9 : CD006483.

Baxter SK, Blank L, Woods HB, Payne N, Rimmer M, Goyder E. Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014; 14 : 62.

Bonell C, Jamal F, Melendez-Torres GJ, Cummins S. ‘Dark logic’: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2015; 69 : 95–98.

Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2014; 12 : 23.

Caldwell DM, Welton NJ. Approaches for synthesising complex mental health interventions in meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Mental Health 2016; 19 : 16–21.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Booth A, Harden A, Hannes K, Thomas J, Flemming K, Garside R, Noyes J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018; 97 : 59–69.

Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JPA, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383 : 156–165.

Chamberlain C, O’Mara-Eves A, Porter J, Coleman T, Perlen S, Thomas J, McKenzie J. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; 2 : CD001055.

Cooper H. The problem formulation stage. In: Cooper H, editor. Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews . Newbury Park (CA) USA: Sage Publications; 1984.

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127 : 380–387.

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

Glass GV. Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Research Synthesis Methods 2015; 6 : 221–231.

Hedges LV. Statistical considerations. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis . New York (NY): USA: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994.

Hetrick SE, McKenzie JE, Cox GR, Simmons MB, Merry SN. Newer generation antidepressants for depressive disorders in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012; 11 : CD004851.

Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687.

Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Lewis HB, Wei Y, Higgins JPT, Ogilvie D. Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015; 9 : CD011045.

Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: Knowledge transfer for policy and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 2008; 28 : 67–72.

Kneale D, Thomas J, Harris K. Developing and optimising the use of logic models in systematic reviews: exploring practice and good practice in the use of programme theory in reviews. PloS One 2015; 10 : e0142187.

Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, Oxman AD, Michie S, Shepperd S, Reeves BC, Tugwell P, Hannes K, Rehfuess EA, Welch V, McKenzie JE, Burford B, Petkovic J, Anderson LM, Harris J, Noyes J. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR). BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017; 17 : 76.

Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P. What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2013; 67 : 190–193.

Nasser M, Ueffing E, Welch V, Tugwell P. An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013; 66 : 511–521.

Nasser M. Setting priorities for conducting and updating systematic reviews [PhD Thesis]: University of Plymouth; 2018.

O’Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, Evans T, Pardo Pardo J, Waters E, White H, Tugwell P. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2014; 67 : 56–64.

Oliver S, Dickson K, Bangpan M, Newman M. Getting started with a review. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews . London (UK): Sage Publications Ltd.; 2017.

Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 2006.

Pfadenhauer L, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, Wahlster P, Polus S, Burns J, Brereton L, Rehfuess E. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implementation Science 2017; 12 : 21.

Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, Burns J, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Oortwijn W, Pfadenhauer LM, Tummers M, van der Wilt GJ, Rohwer A. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9 : 13–24.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club 1995; 123 : A12–13.

Rohwer A, Pfadenhauer L, Burns J, Brereton L, Gerhardus A, Booth A, Oortwijn W, Rehfuess E. Series: Clinical epidemiology in South Africa. Paper 3: Logic models help make sense of complexity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017; 83 : 37–47.

Sharma T, Choudhury M, Rejón-Parrilla JC, Jonsson P, Garner S. Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open 2018; 8 : e019777.

Squires J, Valentine J, Grimshaw J. Systematic reviews of complex interventions: framing the review question. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013; 66 : 1215–1222.

Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, Manns B, Winkelmayer WC, Hemmelgarn B, Craig JC. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2015; 65 : 674–683.

Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, Crowe S, Hanson C, Hill S, Synnot A, Craig JC. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant International 2017; 30 : 327–343.

Turley R, Saith R, Bhan N, Rehfuess E, Carter B. Slum upgrading strategies involving physical environment and infrastructure interventions and their effects on health and socio-economic outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013; 1 : CD010067.

van der Heijden I, Abrahams N, Sinclair D. Psychosocial group interventions to improve psychological well-being in adults living with HIV. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; 3 : CD010806.

Viergever RF. Health Research Prioritization at WHO: An Overview of Methodology and High Level Analysis of WHO Led Health Research Priority Setting Exercises . Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2010.

Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Research Policy and Systems 2010; 8 : 36.

Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. International Journal of Health Services 1992; 22 : 429–25.

For permission to re-use material from the Handbook (either academic or commercial), please see here for full details.

The Literature Review: 5. Organizing the Literature Review

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Why Do a Literature Review?
• 3. Methods for Searching the Literature
• 4. Analysing the Literature
• 5. Organizing the Literature Review
• 6. Writing the Review

1. Organizing Principles

A literature review is a piece of discursive prose, not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It should have a single organizing principle:

• Thematic - organize around a topic or issue
• Chronological - sections for each vital time period
• Methodological - focus on the methods used by the researchers/writers

4. Selected Online Resources

• Literature Review in Education & Behavioral Sciences This is an interactive tutorial from Adelphi University Libraries on how to conduct a literature review in education and the behavioural sciences using library databases
• Writing Literature Reviews This tutorial is from the Writing section of Monash University's Language and Learning Online site
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This guide is from the Health Services Writing Centre at the University of Toronto
• Learn How to Write a Review of the Literature This guide is part of the Writer's Handbook provided by the Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Structure of the Literature Review

Although your literature review will rely heavily on the sources you read for its information, you should dictate the structure of the review. It is important that the concepts are presented in an order that makes sense of the context of your research project.

There may be clear divisions on the sets of ideas you want to discuss, in which case your structure may be fairly clear. This is an ideal situation. In most cases, there will be several different possible structures for your review.

Similarly to the structure of the research report itself, the literature review consists of:

• Introduction

Introduction - profile of the study

• Define or identify the general topic to provide the context for reviewing the literature
• Outline why the topic is important
• Identify overall trends in what has been published about the topic
• Identify conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions
• Identify gaps in research and scholarlship
• Explain the criteria to be used in analysing and comparing the literature
• Describe the organization of the review (the sequence)
• If necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)

Body - summative, comparative, and evaluative discussion of literature reviewed

For a thematic review:

• organize the review into paragraphs that present themes and identify trends relevant to your topic
• each paragraph should deal with a different theme - you need to synthesize several of your readings into each paragraph in such a way that there is a clear connection between the sources
• don't try to list all the materials you have identified in your literature search

From each of the section summaries:

• summarize the main agreements and disagreements in the literature
• summarize the general conclusions that have been drawn
• establish where your own research fits in the context of the existing literature

5. A Final Checklist

• Have you indicated the purpose of the review?
• Have you emphasized recent developments?
• Is there a logic to the way you organized the material?
• Does the amount of detail included on an issue relate to its importance?
• Have you been sufficiently critical of design and methodological issues?
• Have you indicated when results were conflicting or inconclusive and discussed possible reasons?
• Has your summary of the current literature contributed to the reader's understanding of the problems?

3. Tips on Structure

A common error in literature reviews is for writers to present material from one author, followed by information from another, then another.... The way in which you group authors and link ideas will help avoid this problem. To group authors who draw similar conclusions, you can use linking words such as:

• additionally

When authors disagree, linking words that indicate contrast will show how you have analysed their work. Words such as:

• on the other hand
• nonetheless

will indicate to your reader how you have analysed the material. At other times, you may want to qualify an author's work (using such words as specifically, usually, or generally ) or use an example ( thus, namely, to illustrate ). In this way you ensure that you are synthesizing the material, not just describing the work already carried out in your field.

Another major problem is that literature reviews are often written as if they stand alone, without links to the rest of the paper. There needs to be a clear relationship between the literature review and the methodology to follow.

• << Previous: 4. Analysing the Literature
• Next: 6. Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 10:36 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwi.edu/litreviewsoe

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started

Selecting a Review Type

Defining the scope of your review, four common types of reviews.

• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

More Review Types

This article by Sutton & Booth (2019) explores 48 distinct types of Literature Reviews:

Which Review is Right for You?

The  Right Review tool  has questions about your lit review process and plans. It offers a qualitative and quantitative option. At completion, you are given a lit review type recommendation.

You'll want to think about the kind of review you are doing. Is it a selective or comprehensive review? Is the review part of a larger work or a stand-alone work ?

For example, if you're writing the Literature Review section of a journal article, that's a selective review which is part of a larger work. Alternatively, if you're writing a review article, that's a comprehensive review which is a stand-alone work. Thinking about this will help you develop the scope of the review.

This exercise will help define the scope of your Literature Review, setting the boundaries for which literature to include and which to exclude.

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

• Which populations to investigate — this can include gender, age, socio-economic status, race, geographic location, etc., if the research area includes humans.
• What years to include — if researching the legalization of medicinal cannabis, you might only look at the previous 20 years; but if researching dolphin mating practices, you might extend many more decades.
• Which subject areas — if researching artificial intelligence, subject areas could be computer science, robotics, or health sciences
• How many sources  — a selective review for a class assignment might only need ten, while a comprehensive review for a dissertation might include hundreds. There is no one right answer.
• There will be many other considerations that are more specific to your topic. 

Most databases will allow you to limit years and subject areas, so look for those tools while searching. See the Searching Tips tab for information on how use these tools.

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review
• More precise definition:  Published materials that provide an examination of published literature . Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness.
• Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
• Usually written as part of a larger work like a journal article or dissertation

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)
• " Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards " is a great article to read on Scoping Reviews

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Common in the health sciences ( Taubman Health Sciences Library guide to Systematic Reviews )
• Goal: collect all literature that meets specific criteria (methodology, population, treatment, etc.) and then appraise its quality and synthesize it
• Follows strict protocol for literature collection, appraisal and synthesis
• Typically performed by research teams 
• Takes 12-18 months to complete
• Often written as a stand alone work

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Open access
• Published: 19 November 2018

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

• Zachary Munn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7091-5842 1 ,
• Micah D. J. Peters 1 ,
• Cindy Stern 1 ,
• Catalin Tufanaru 1 ,
• Alexa McArthur 1 &
• Edoardo Aromataris 1  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  18 , Article number:  143 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

916k Accesses

4841 Citations

860 Altmetric

Metrics details

Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate.

Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.

Conclusions

Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Peer Review reports

Systematic reviews in healthcare began to appear in publication in the 1970s and 1980s [ 1 , 2 ]. With the emergence of groups such as Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) in the 1990s [ 3 ], reviews have exploded in popularity both in terms of the number conducted [ 1 ], and their uptake to inform policy and practice. Today, systematic reviews are conducted for a wide range of purposes across diverse fields of inquiry, different evidence types and for different questions [ 4 ]. More recently, the field of evidence synthesis has seen the emergence of scoping reviews, which are similar to systematic reviews in that they follow a structured process, however they are performed for different reasons and have some key methodological differences [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid approach in those circumstances where systematic reviews are unable to meet the necessary objectives or requirements of knowledge users. There now exists clear guidance regarding the definition of scoping reviews, how to conduct scoping reviews and the steps involved in the scoping review process [ 6 , 8 ]. However, the guidance regarding the key indications or reasons why reviewers may choose to follow a scoping review approach is not as straightforward, with scoping reviews often conducted for purposes that do not align with the original indications as proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. As editors and peer reviewers for various journals we have noticed that there is inconsistency and confusion regarding the indications for scoping reviews and a lack of clarity for authors regarding when a scoping review should be performed as opposed to a systematic review. The purpose of this article is to provide practical guidance for reviewers on when to perform a systematic review or a scoping review, supported with some key examples.

Indications for systematic reviews

Systematic reviews can be broadly defined as a type of research synthesis that are conducted by review groups with specialized skills, who set out to identify and retrieve international evidence that is relevant to a particular question or questions and to appraise and synthesize the results of this search to inform practice, policy and in some cases, further research [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. According to the Cochrane handbook, a systematic review ‘uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.’ [ 14 ] Systematic reviews follow a structured and pre-defined process that requires rigorous methods to ensure that the results are both reliable and meaningful to end users. These reviews may be considered the pillar of evidence-based healthcare [ 15 ] and are widely used to inform the development of trustworthy clinical guidelines [ 11 , 16 , 17 ].

A systematic review may be undertaken to confirm or refute whether or not current practice is based on relevant evidence, to establish the quality of that evidence, and to address any uncertainty or variation in practice that may be occurring. Such variations in practice may be due to conflicting evidence and undertaking a systematic review should (hopefully) resolve such conflicts. Conducting a systematic review may also identify gaps, deficiencies, and trends in the current evidence and can help underpin and inform future research in the area. Systematic reviews can be used to produce statements to guide clinical decision-making, the delivery of care, as well as policy development [ 12 ]. Broadly, indications for systematic reviews are as follows [ 4 ]:

Uncover the international evidence

Confirm current practice/ address any variation/ identify new practices

Identify and inform areas for future research

Identify and investigate conflicting results

Produce statements to guide decision-making

Despite the utility of systematic reviews to address the above indications, there are cases where systematic reviews are unable to meet the necessary objectives or requirements of knowledge users or where a methodologically robust and structured preliminary searching and scoping activity may be useful to inform the conduct of the systematic reviews. As such, scoping reviews (which are also sometimes called scoping exercises/scoping studies) [ 8 ] have emerged as a valid approach with rather different indications to those for systematic reviews. It is important to note here that other approaches to evidence synthesis have also emerged, including realist reviews, mixed methods reviews, concept analyses and others [ 4 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. This article focuses specifically on the choice between a systematic review or scoping review approach.

Indications for scoping reviews

True to their name, scoping reviews are an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview (broad or detailed) of its focus. Scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review [ 21 ]. They can report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted.

The general purpose for conducting scoping reviews is to identify and map the available evidence [ 5 , 22 ]. Arskey and O’Malley, authors of the seminal paper describing a framework for scoping reviews, provided four specific reasons why a scoping review may be conducted [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 22 ]. Soon after, Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien further clarified and extended this original framework [ 7 ]. These authors acknowledged that at the time, there was no universally recognized definition of scoping reviews nor a commonly acknowledged purpose or indication for conducting them. In 2015, a methodological working group of the JBI produced formal guidance for conducting scoping reviews [ 6 ]. However, we have not previously addressed and expanded upon the indications for scoping reviews. Below, we build upon previously described indications and suggest the following purposes for conducting a scoping review:

To identify the types of available evidence in a given field

To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature

To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field

To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept

As a precursor to a systematic review.

To identify and analyse knowledge gaps

Deciding between a systematic review and a scoping review approach

Authors deciding between the systematic review or scoping review approach should carefully consider the indications discussed above for each synthesis type and determine exactly what question they are asking and what purpose they are trying to achieve with their review. We propose that the most important consideration is whether or not the authors wish to use the results of their review to answer a clinically meaningful question or provide evidence to inform practice. If the authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a certain treatment or practice, then a systematic review is likely the most valid approach [ 11 , 23 ]. However, authors do not always wish to ask such single or precise questions, and may be more interested in the identification of certain characteristics/concepts in papers or studies, and in the mapping, reporting or discussion of these characteristics/concepts. In these cases, a scoping review is the better choice.

As scoping reviews do not aim to produce a critically appraised and synthesised result/answer to a particular question, and rather aim to provide an overview or map of the evidence. Due to this, an assessment of methodological limitations or risk of bias of the evidence included within a scoping review is generally not performed (unless there is a specific requirement due to the nature of the scoping review aim) [ 6 ]. Given this assessment of bias is not conducted, the implications for practice (from a clinical or policy making point of view) that arise from a scoping review are quite different compared to those of a systematic review. In some cases, there may be no need or impetus to make implications for practice and if there is a need to do so, these implications may be significantly limited in terms of providing concrete guidance from a clinical or policy making point of view. Conversely, when we compare this to systematic reviews, the provision of implications for practice is a key feature of systematic reviews and is recommended in reporting guidelines for systematic reviews [ 13 ].

Exemplars for different scoping review indications

In the following section, we elaborate on each of the indications listed for scoping reviews and provide a number of examples for authors considering a scoping review approach.

Scoping reviews that seek to identify the types of evidence in a given field share similarities with evidence mapping activities as explained by Bragge and colleagues in a paper on conducting scoping research in broad topic areas [ 24 ]. Chambers and colleagues [ 25 ] conducted a scoping review in order to identify current knowledge translation resources (and any evaluations of them) that use, adapt and present findings from systematic reviews to suit the needs of policy makers. Following a comprehensive search across a range of databases, organizational websites and conference abstract repositories based upon predetermined inclusion criteria, the authors identified 20 knowledge translation resources which they classified into three different types (overviews, summaries and policy briefs) as well as seven published and unpublished evaluations. The authors concluded that evidence synthesists produce a range of resources to assist policy makers to transfer and utilize the findings of systematic reviews and that focussed summaries are the most common. Similarly, a scoping review was conducted by Challen and colleagues [ 26 ] in order to determine the types of available evidence identifying the source and quality of publications and grey literature for emergency planning. A comprehensive set of databases and websites were investigated and 1603 relevant sources of evidence were identified mainly addressing emergency planning and response with fewer sources concerned with hazard analysis, mitigation and capability assessment. Based on the results of the review, the authors concluded that while there is a large body of evidence in the field, issues with its generalizability and validity are as yet largely unknown and that the exact type and form of evidence that would be valuable to knowledge users in the field is not yet understood.

To clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature

Scoping reviews are often performed to examine and clarify definitions that are used in the literature. A scoping review by Schaink and colleagues 27 was performed to investigate how the notion of “patient complexity” had been defined, classified, and understood in the existing literature. A systematic search of healthcare databases was conducted. Articles were assessed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria and the findings of included articles were grouped into five health dimensions. An overview of how complexity has been described was presented, including the varying definitions and interpretations of the term. The results of the scoping review enabled the authors to then develop a complexity framework or model to assist in defining and understanding patient complexity [ 27 ].

Hines et al. [ 28 ] provide a further example where a scoping review has been conducted to define a concept, in this case the condition bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The authors revealed significant variation in how the condition was defined across the literature, prompting the authors to call for a ‘comprehensive and evidence-based definition’. [ 28 ]

To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic

Scoping reviews can be useful tools to investigate the design and conduct of research on a particular topic. A scoping review by Callary and colleagues 29 investigated the methodological design of studies assessing wear of a certain type of hip replacement (highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components) [ 29 ]. The aim of the scoping review was to survey the literature to determine how data pertinent to the measurement of hip replacement wear had been reported in primary studies and whether the methods were similar enough to allow for comparison across studies. The scoping review revealed that the methods to assess wear (radiostereometric analysis) varied significantly with many different approaches being employed amongst the investigators. The results of the scoping review led to the authors recommending enhanced standardization in measurements and methods for future research in this field [ 29 ].

There are other examples of scoping reviews investigating research methodology, with perhaps the most pertinent examples being two recent scoping reviews of scoping review methods [ 9 , 10 ]. Both of these scoping reviews investigated how scoping reviews had been reported and conducted, with both advocating for a need for clear guidance to improve standardization of methods [ 9 , 10 ]. Similarly, a scoping review investigating methodology was conducted by Tricco and colleagues 30 on rapid review methods that have been evaluated, compared, used or described in the literature. A variety of rapid review approaches were identified with many instances of poor reporting identified. The authors called for prospective studies to compare results presented by rapid reviews versus systematic reviews.

Scoping reviews can be conducted to identify and examine characteristics or factors related to a particular concept. Harfield and colleagues (2015) conducted a scoping review to identify the characteristics of indigenous primary healthcare service delivery models [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. A systematic search was conducted, followed by screening and study selection. Once relevant studies had been identified, a process of data extraction commenced to extract characteristics referred to in the included papers. Over 1000 findings were eventually grouped into eight key factors (accessible health services, community participation, culturally appropriate and skilled workforce, culture, continuous quality improvement, flexible approaches to care, holistic health care, self-determination and empowerment). The results of this scoping review have been able to inform a best practice model for indigenous primary healthcare services.

Scoping reviews conducted as precursors to systematic reviews may enable authors to identify the nature of a broad field of evidence so that ensuing reviews can be assured of locating adequate numbers of relevant studies for inclusion. They also enable the relevant outcomes and target group or population for example for a particular intervention to be identified. This can have particular practical benefits for review teams undertaking reviews on less familiar topics and can assist the team to avoid undertaking an “empty” review [ 33 ]. Scoping reviews of this kind may help reviewers to develop and confirm their a priori inclusion criteria and ensure that the questions to be posed by their subsequent systematic review are able to be answered by available, relevant evidence. In this way, systematic reviews are able to be underpinned by a preliminary and evidence-based scoping stage.

A scoping review commissioned by the United Kingdom Department for International Development was undertaken to determine the scope and nature of literature on people’s experiences of microfinance. The results of this scoping review were used to inform the development of targeted systematic review questions that focussed upon areas of particular interest [ 34 ].

In their recent scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, Tricco and colleagues 10 reveal only 12% of scoping reviews contained recommendations for the development of ensuing systematic reviews, suggesting that the majority of scoping review authors do not conduct scoping reviews as a precursor to future systematic reviews.

To identify and analyze gaps in the knowledge base

Scoping reviews are rarely solely conducted to simply identify and analyze gaps present in a given knowledge base, as examination and presentation of what hasn’t been investigated or reported generally requires exhaustive examination of all of what is available. In any case, because scoping reviews tend to be a useful approach for reviewing evidence rapidly in emerging fields or topics, identification and analysis of knowledge gaps is a common and valuable indication for conducting a scoping review. A scoping review was recently conducted to review current research and identify knowledge gaps on the topic of “occupational balance”, or the balance of work, rest, sleep, and play [ 35 ]. Following a systematic search across a range of relevant databases, included studies were selected and in line with predetermined inclusion criteria, were described and mapped to provide both an overall picture of the current state of the evidence in the field and to identify and highlight knowledge gaps in the area. The results of the scoping review allowed the authors to illustrate several research ‘gaps’, including the absence of studies conducted outside of western societies, the lack of knowledge around peoples’ levels of occupational balance, as well as a dearth of evidence regarding how occupational balance may be enhanced. As with other scoping reviews focussed upon identifying and analyzing knowledge gaps, results such as these allow for the identification of future research initiatives.

Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid review approach for certain indications. A key difference between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that in terms of a review question, a scoping review will have a broader “scope” than traditional systematic reviews with correspondingly more expansive inclusion criteria. In addition, scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in their overriding purpose. We have previously recommended the use of the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept and Context) to guide question development [ 36 ]. The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors, as a lack of clarity can result in difficulties encountered later on in the review process [ 36 ].

Considering their differences from systematic reviews, scoping reviews should still not be confused with traditional literature reviews. Traditional literature reviews have been used as a means to summarise various publications or research on a particular topic for many years. In these traditional reviews, authors examine research reports in addition to conceptual or theoretical literature that focuses on the history, importance, and collective thinking around a topic, issue or concept. These types of reviews can be considered subjective, due to their substantial reliance on the author’s pre-exiting knowledge and experience and as they do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic [ 12 ]. Regardless of some of these limitations, traditional literature reviews may still have some use in terms of providing an overview of a topic or issue. Scoping reviews provide a useful alternative to literature reviews when clarification around a concept or theory is required. If traditional literature reviews are contrasted with scoping reviews, the latter [ 6 ]:

Are informed by an a priori protocol

Are systematic and often include exhaustive searching for information

Aim to be transparent and reproducible

Include steps to reduce error and increase reliability (such as the inclusion of multiple reviewers)

Ensure data is extracted and presented in a structured way

Another approach to evidence synthesis that has emerged recently is the production of evidence maps [ 37 ]. The purpose of these evidence maps is similar to scoping reviews to identify and analyse gaps in the knowledge base [ 37 , 38 ]. In fact, most evidence mapping articles cite seminal scoping review guidance for their methods [ 38 ]. The two approaches therefore have many similarities, with perhaps the most prominent difference being the production of a visual database or schematic (i.e. map) which assists the user in interpreting where evidence exists and where there are gaps [ 38 ]. As Miake-Lye states, at this stage ‘it is difficult to determine where one method ends and the other begins.’ [ 38 ] Both approaches may be valid when the indication is for determining the extent of evidence on a particular topic, particularly when highlighting gaps in the research.

A further popular method to define and scope concepts, particularly in nursing, is through the conduct of a concept analysis [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Formal concept analysis is ‘a process whereby concepts are logically and systematically investigated to form clear and rigorously constructed conceptual definitions,’ [ 42 ] which is similar to scoping reviews where the indication is to clarify concepts in the literature. There is limited methodological guidance on how to conduct a concept analysis and recently they have been critiqued for having no impact on practice [ 39 ]. In our opinion, scoping reviews (where the purpose is to systematically investigate a concept in the literature) offer a methodologically rigorous alternative to concept analysis with their results perhaps being more useful to inform practice.

Comparing and contrasting the characteristics of traditional literature reviews, scoping reviews and systematic reviews may help clarify the true essence of these different types of reviews (see Table 1 ).

Rapid reviews are another emerging type of evidence synthesis and a substantial amount of literature have addressed these types of reviews [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. There are various definitions for rapid reviews, and for simplification purposes, we define these review types as ‘systematic reviews with shortcuts.’ In this paper, we have not discussed the choice between a rapid or systematic review approach as we are of the opinion that perhaps the major consideration for conducting a rapid review (as compared to a systematic or scoping review) is not the purpose/question itself, but the feasibility of conducting a full review given financial/resource limitations and time pressures. As such, a rapid review could potentially be conducted for any of the indications listed above for the scoping or systematic review, whilst shortening or skipping entirely some steps in the standard systematic or scoping review process.

There is some overlap across the six listed purposes for conducting a scoping review described in this paper. For example, it is logical to presume that if a review group were aiming to identify the types of available evidence in a field they would also be interested in identifying and analysing gaps in the knowledge base. Other combinations of purposes for scoping reviews would also make sense for certain questions/aims. However, we have chosen to list them as discrete reasons in this paper in an effort to provide some much needed clarity on the appropriate purposes for conducting scoping reviews. As such, scoping review authors should not interpret our list of indications as a discrete list where only one purpose can be identified.

It is important to mention some potential abuses of scoping reviews. Reviewers may conduct a scoping review as an alternative to a systematic review in order to avoid the critical appraisal stage of the review and expedite the process, thinking that a scoping review may be easier than a systematic review to conduct. Other reviewers may conduct a scoping review in order to ‘map’ the literature when there is no obvious need for ‘mapping’ in this particular subject area. Others may conduct a scoping review with very broad questions as an alternative to investing the time and effort required to craft the necessary specific questions required for undertaking a systematic review. In these cases, scoping reviews are not appropriate and authors should refer to our guidance regarding whether they should be conducting a systematic review instead.

This article provides some clarification on when to conduct a scoping review as compared to a systematic review and clear guidance on the purposes for conducting a scoping review. We hope that this paper will provide a useful addition to this evolving methodology and encourage others to review, modify and build upon these indications as the approach matures. Further work in scoping review methods is required, with perhaps the most important advancement being the recent development of an extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for scoping reviews [ 48 ] and the development of software and training programs to support these reviews [ 49 , 50 ]. As the methodology advances, guidance for scoping reviews (such as that included in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual) will require revision, refining and updating.

Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Researchers may preference the conduct of a scoping review over a systematic review where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, investigate research conduct, or to inform a systematic review. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37.

Jordan Z, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Lockwood C. Now that we're here, where are we? The JBI approach to evidence-based healthcare 20 years on. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):117–20.

Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.

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

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

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1.

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

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

Pearson A. Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports. 2004;2:45–64.

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2009;339:b2700.

Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. ed: The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.

Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:108.

Pearson A, Jordan Z, Munn Z. Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare. Nursing research and practice. 2012;2012:792519.

Steinberg E, Greenfield S, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Graham R. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:28.

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

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):11–20.

Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. J Public Health. 2011;33(1):147–50.

Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(1):1.

Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2005;3(8):207–15.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen RL. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:92.

Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89(1):131–56.

Challen K, Lee AC, Booth A, Gardois P, Woods HB, Goodacre SW. Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:542.

Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, et al. A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework. Journal of comorbidity. 2012;2(1):1–9.

Hines D, Modi N, Lee SK, Isayama T, Sjörs G, Gagliardi L, Lehtonen L, Vento M, Kusuda S, Bassler D, Mori R. Scoping review shows wide variation in the definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants and calls for a consensus. Acta Paediatr. 2017;106(3):366–74.

Callary SA, Solomon LB, Holubowycz OT, Campbell DG, Munn Z, Howie DW. Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(2):159–68.

Davy C, Harfield S, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A. Access to primary health care services for indigenous peoples: a framework synthesis. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15(1):163.

Harfield S, Davy C, Kite E, et al. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(11):43–51.

Harfield SG, Davy C, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A, Brown N. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Glob Health. 2018;14(1):12.

Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK (2015) , Protocol. Adelaide: the Joanna Briggs Institute UoA. What are people’s views and experiences of delivering and participating in microfinance interventions? A systematic review of qualitative evidence from South Asia.

Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK People’s views and experiences of participating in microfinance interventions: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. London: EPPI-Centre: social science research unit, UCL Institute of education, University College London; 2016.

Wagman P, Håkansson C, Jonsson H. Occupational balance: a scoping review of current research and identified knowledge gaps. J Occup Sci. 2015;22(2):160–9.

Peters MD. In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):1–4.

Hetrick SE, Parker AG, Callahan P, Purcell R. Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(6):1025–30.

Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):1.

Draper P. A critique of concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(6):1207–8.

Gibson CH. A concept analysis of empowerment. J Adv Nurs. 1991;16(3):354–61.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Meeberg GA. Quality of life: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(1):32–8.

Ream E, Richardson A. Fatigue: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 1996;33(5):519–29.

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.

Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.

Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10(4):397–410.

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.

Munn Z, Lockwood C, Moola S. The development and use of evidence summaries for point of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2015;12(3):131–8.

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

Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Moola S, Lizarondo L, McArthur A. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018. (in press)

Stern C, Munn Z, Porritt K, et al. An international educational training course for conducting systematic reviews in health care: the Joanna Briggs Institute's comprehensive systematic review training program. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2018;15(5):401–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

No funding was provided for this paper.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, 5005, South Australia

Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ZM: Led the development of this paper and conceptualised the idea for a paper on indications for scoping reviews. Provided final approval for submission. MP: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. Provided final approval for submission. CS: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. Provided final approval for submission. CT: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. Provided final approval for submission. AM: Contributed conceptually to the paper and reviewed and provided feedback on all drafts. Provided final approval for submission. EA: Contributed conceptually to the paper and reviewed and provided feedback on all drafts. Provided approval and encouragement for the work to proceed. Provided final approval for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary Munn .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

All the authors are members of the Joanna Briggs Institute, an evidence-based healthcare research institute which provides formal guidance regarding evidence synthesis, transfer and implementation. Zachary Munn is a member of the editorial board of this journal. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.

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 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18 , 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2018

Accepted : 06 November 2018

Published : 19 November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

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

• Systematic review
• Scoping review
• Evidence-based healthcare

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Peer Review
• Citation/Style Guides This link opens in a new window

Quick Links

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a methodical examination of the published literature on a specific topic or research question, aimed at analyzing rather than merely summarizing scholarly works relevant to your research . It includes literature that offers background on your topic and demonstrates how it aligns with your research question.

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

• To help define the focus of your research topic.
• To identify existing research in your area of interest, pinpoint gaps in the existing literature, and avoid duplicating previous research.
• To gain an understanding of past and current research as well as the current developments and controversies in your field of interest.
• To recognize and assess the strengths and weaknesses of works related to your area of interest.
• To evaluate the contributions of experts, theoretical approaches, methodologies, results, conclusions, and possible opportunities for future research.

A Literature Review is NOT

• An annotated bibliography or research paper
• A collection of broad, unrelated sources
• Everything that has been written on a particular topic
• Literature criticism or a book review.

Literature Review vs Annotated Bibliography

A literature review and an annotated bibliography are both tools used to assess and present scholarly research, but they serve different purposes and have distinct formats:

Where Can I Find a Lit Review?

The Literature Review portion of a scholarly article is usually close to the beginning. It often follows the introduction , or may be combined with the introduction. The writer may discuss his or her research question first, or may choose to explain it while surveying previous literature.

If you are lucky, there will be a section heading that includes " literature review ".  If not, look for the section of the article with the most citations or footnotes .

• Next: Steps for Conducting a Lit Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 5:23 PM
• URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/literaturereview

Systematic Reviews & Other Review Types

• What is a Systematic Review?

What is a Scoping Review?

• What is a literature review?
• What is a Rapid Review?
• What is a Mixed Methods Review?
• What is a Network Meta-Analysis?
• What is an Overview of Reviews?
• What is a Meta-Syntheses?
• What is an Integrative Review?
• What is a Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review?
• What is a Living Systematic Review?

Scoping reviews are a "preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature.  Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)."   Grant and Booth (2009).

Requires fewer data sources and doesn't require assessing individual studies for risk of bias. 

Often a scoping review is confused with a mapping review.  They are  not systematic reviews , but the methodology is closely related. 

Scoping Reviews are best:

"When a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a large, complex, or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review."

To map existing literature in terms of nature, features, volume

To clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field

To identify gaps in existing literature/research

(Pete rs M, Godfrey C,  Khalil  H, et al)

How a Scoping Review Differs from a Systematic Review

Timeframe:  12+ months, (same amount of time as a systematic review or longer).

Question:  Answers broader questions beyond those related to the effectiveness of treatments or interventions.  A priori review protocol is recommended.

Sources and searches: Is still as comprehensive as a systematic review but much broader.  May involve multiple structured searches rather than a single structured search.  This will produce more results than a systematic review.  Must include a modified PRISMA flow diagram.

Selection:  Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, due to the iterative nature of a scoping review some changes may be necessary.  May require more time spent screening articles due to the larger volume of results from broader questions.

Appraisal:  Not applicable for scoping reviews. 

Synthesis: The extraction of data for a scoping review may include a charting table or form.  Results may include a logical diagram or table or any descriptive form that aligns with the scope and objectives of the review.  May incorporate a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis.

Source: MDJ Peters et al. (2015), Levac et al. (2010)

Scoping Review Resources

• PRISMA SCR-Scoping Reviews Statement and Checklist
• Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
• Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework
• A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
• An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews
• Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
• CURRENT BEST PRACTICES FOR THE CONDUCT OF SCOPING REVIEWS
• Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian
• Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews

Limitations of a Scoping Review

• Is not easier than a systematic review.
• Is not faster than a systematic review, may take longer.
• More citations to screen
• Different screening criteria/process than a systematic review
• Often leads to a broader, less defined search.
• Requires multiple structured searches instead of one.
• Increased emphasis for hand searching the literature.
• May require larger teams because of larger volume of literature.
• Inconsistency in the conduct of scoping reviews.

Other names for a Scoping Review

Scoping Study, Systematic Scoping Review, Scoping Report, Scope of the Evidence, Rapid Scoping Review, Structured Literature Review, Scoping Project, Scoping Meta Review

Temple Attribution

Adapted with permission from Temple University Libraries. https://guides.temple.edu/systematicreviews

• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://touromed.libguides.com/review_types

Hydro-meteorological Research Study in Madhya Pradesh, Central India: A Literature Review

• Published: 16 August 2024

Cite this article

• Sarita Tiwari 1 ,
• Ashok Biswal 1 &
• Gajanan Ramteke 2  

Explore all metrics

Water is a crucial and invaluable natural resource essential for humanity to sustain on Earth. Around 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by salt water, which has the largest water volume, and just about 2.5% of fresh water is available for human consumption. The factors that control the spatio-temporal variability of these water resources are envisaged to be of importance. Hydrometeorology is the branch of science that deals with water resource management and understanding water availability by simultaneously using the principles of hydrology and meteorology. Extreme hydro-meteorological events like floods, droughts, and other hydro-meteorological calamities are impacting the region’s water resources. For a big state such as Madhya Pradesh, where the availability of hydro-meteorological data is critical in dealing with the management of water resources not only for the state but for the other neighbouring states, those aquifers and rivers are fed by the cross-boundary rivers of the state. Several research activities that have been carried out in Madhya Pradesh in hydrometeorology and allied disciplines by various researchers are reviewed and presented in this paper. This research paper also discussed the analysis of hydrometeorology services and highlighted the significance of hydrometeorology research at regional level. Apart from this, the major challenges faced in hydro-meteorological research in Madhya Pradesh are also highlighted in the paper.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Advances in surface water hydrology research in India

Understanding the hydrometeorological characteristics and relationships in the semiarid region of Maharashtra (western India): implications for water management

Update, Conclusions, and Recommendations for “Water Resources Management in Romania”

Data availability.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abhishek, W. M., Randhe, R. D., Mukesh, K., & Rajwade, Y. A. (2020). Temporal trend analysis and probabilistic rainfall estimation for Bhopal district of Madhya Pradesh. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci ISSN, 9 , 2319–7706.

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, A., Deb, D. B., & Mondal, S. (2019). Assessment of rainfall variability and its impact on groundnut yield in Bundelkhand region of India. Current Science, 117 (5), 794.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ajay, S., & Anand, P. (2012). Spatio-temporal distribution of extreme weather events in India. APCBEE Procedia, 1 (2012), 258–262.

Amit, K., & Manish, N. K. (2017). Analysing recent history of drought conditions in Madhya Pradesh using standardised precipitation index (SPI). IGWC, 2017 , 11–13.

Antra, N., Alok, B., Singh, B. R., Sujatha, K., & Nitin, V. (2018). Trend analysis of rainfall and rainy days of Sehore district of Madhya Pradesh. J Indian Soc Agric Stat, 72 (2), 105–112.

Chandni, S., Daron, J., Bazaz, A., Ziervogel, G., Spear, D., Krishnaswamy, J., Zaroug, M., & Kituyi, E. (2018). The utility of weather and climate information for adaptation decision-making: current uses and future prospects in Africa and India. Climate and Development, 10 (5), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1318744

Darshan, D., Ashish, P., Pratap, S. K., & Prasad, P. R. (2013). Spatial and temporal variability in maximum, minimum and mean air temperatures at Madhya Pradesh in central India. C R Geosci, 345 (2013), 3–21.

De, U. S., Dube, R. K., & Prakash, R. G. S. (2005). Extreme weather events over India in the last 100 years. J Ind Geophys Union, 9 (3), 173–187.

Dinesh, K., Thomas, T., & Singh, R. M. (2018). Analysis of groundwater drought characteristics of Damoh district in Bundelkhand using groundwater drought index. Indian J Soil Conserv, 46 , 1.

Dinesh, K., Thomas, T., & Singh, R. M. (2019). Groundwater drought analysis of Sagar district in Bundelkhand using groundwater drought index (GDI). Indian J Dryland Agric Res Dev, 31 (2), 31–35.

Dubey Rahul, K., Singh Rajendra, K., & Dubey, S. K. (2017). Long term rainfall trend and drought analysis for Bundelkhand region of India. Clim Chang Environ Sustain, 5 (1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-642X.2017.00004.7

Easterling, D. R., Evans, J. L., Groisman, P. Y., Karl, T. R., Kunkel, K. E., & Ambenje, P. (2000). Observed variability and trends in extreme climate events: a brief review*. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81 (3), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-

Feng, W., Zhan, J., Hongbo, S., Yan, H., & Ma, E. (2015). Scenario-based impact assessment of land use/cover and climate changes on watershed hydrology in Heihe river basin of Northwest China. Adv Meteorol, 2015 , 11.

Guntu, R. K., & Agarwal, A. (2021). Investigation of precipitation variability and extremes using information theory. Environ Sci Proc, 4 , 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecas2020-08115

Jain, K. S., Kumar, N., Ahmad, T., & Kite, G. W. (1998). SLURP model and GIS for estimation of runoff in a part of Satluj catchment. India Hydrol Sci J, 43 (6), 875–884.

Jana, C., Alam, N. M., Mandal, D., Shamin, M., & Rajesh, K. (2017). Spatio-temporal rainfall trends in twentieth century for Bundelkhand region. India J Water Clim Chang . https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2017.120

Kamaljit, R., Giri, R. K., Ray, S. S., Dimri, A. P., & Rajeevan, M. (2021). An assessment of long-term changes in mortalities due to extreme weather events in India: a study of 50 years’ data, 1970–2019. Weather Clim Extrem, 32 (2021), 100315.

Kawadia, G., & Tiwari, Era., (2017) Understanding climate change in Indore district: an empirical investigation of trends and shifts amity journal of economics. 2(1), 64–78. Corpus ID: 210181303, JEL Classification–Q54, R11 (Available online: https://amity.edu/UserFiles/admaa/fc7a417903.pdf )

Kirsti, H., Nans, A., & Jan, S. (2018). Hydrological modeling to evaluate climate model simulations and their bias correction page(s). Journal of Hydrometeorology, 19 (8), 1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0189.1

Lakshmi, T. V. K., Barbosa, H., Koteswara, R. K., & Prabha, J. E. (2012). Some studies on the frequency of extreme weather events over India. J Agr Sci Tech, 14 , 1343–1356.

Kumar, K. S., Singh, T. T., & Mandir, R. (2016). Assessment of drought characteristics for Dhasan basin in Bundelkhand region 1. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol Cit IJAEB, 9 (5), 897–902.

Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Lucas Menzel (2003) Flood risk and vulnerability in the changing world, International conference ‘Towards natural flood reduction strategies’, Warsaw, 6–13 September 2003 (Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265225819_Flood_risk_and_vulnerability_in_the_changing_world/link/563b61d208ae45b5d2867d9b/download )

Van Lanen, H.A.J., Tallaksen, L., Candel, M.J.J.M., Carrera, J., Crooks, S.M., Engeland, K., Fendeková, M., Haddeland, I., Hisdal, H., Horacek, S., et al. Database with hydrometeorological variables for selected river basins: metadata catalogue; watch technical report 4; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. Available online: http://www.eu-watch.org/publications/technical-reports (Accessed 25 Nov 2014)

Mahapatra, B., Walia, M., & Saggurti, N. (2018). Extreme weather events induced deaths in India 2001–2014: trends and differentials by region, sex and age group. Weather Clim Extrem . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2018.08.001

Mohammad, R., Vinita, K., & Pramendra, D. (2017). Effects of rainfall factor on hydrogeological system recharge in bangar environs: a middle part of India. Bull Pure Appl Sci . https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-3234.2017.00003.8

Mohanty, Abinash (2020) Preparing India for extreme climate events: mapping hotspots and response mechanisms. New Delhi: council on energy, environment and water. Available online: https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/CEEW-Preparing-India-for-extreme-climate-events_10Dec20.pdf

Pandey, H. K., Shivam, D., & Kamlesh, K. (2018). Flood frequency analysis of Betwa river, Madhya Pradesh India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 92 , 286–290.

Satyanarayana Pondari, Sharma Jaswant RAJ, Web Enabledwater Resources Information System of India (INDIA-WRIS WEBGIS), presented in the conference: Geospatial Techniques for Resources Evaluation and Disaster Management At: Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, (Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296675244_WEB_ENABLED_WATER_RESOURCES_INFORMATION_SYSTEM_OF_INDIA_INDIA-WRIS_WEBGIS )

Guhathakurta Pulak, Menon Preetha, Prasad Kumar Ashwini, Sable S.T., Bhandari Sunita, Shinde Archana, Kashyapi Anupam (2020) Observed rainfall variability and changes over Madhya Pradesh state, Met Monograph No.: ESSO/IMD/HS/Rainfall Variability/15(2020)/39. Published by IMD

Kamat Rajshree (2019) Urban flood vulnerability assessment of Bhopal, M.P., India international journal of civil engineering and technology 10(1), 2019, pp. 2956–2977. Available online: http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=10&Issue=1

Rickards, N., Thomas, T., Kaelin, A., Houghton-Carr, H., Jain, S. K., Mishra, P. K., & Rees, G. (2020). Understanding future water challenges in a highly regulated indian river basin—modelling the impact of climate change on the hydrology of the upper Narmada. Water, 12 (6), 1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061762

Rituraj, S., & Deepak, K. (2013). Historical trend investigation of temperature variation in Indira Sagar canal command area in Madhya Pradesh (1901–2005). Int J Adv Inf Sci Technol (IJAIST) ISSN, 2319 , 2682.

Sahu, R. K., Rawat, A. K., & Rao, D. L. N. (2015). Traditional rainwater management system (“Haveli”) in Vertisols of central India improves carbon sequestration and biological soil fertility. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200 , 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.00

Sananda, K., Deepak, K., Arun, M., & Mishra, P. K. (2015). Analysis of spatial and temporal variation in rainfall trend of Madhya Pradesh, India (1901–2011). Environment and Earth Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3978-y

Jain, S. K. (2012). India’s water balance and evapo-transpiration. Current Science, 102 , 964.

Sharma, S. K. (2021). Water resources of Madhya Pradesh: contemporary issues and challenges. In B. W. Pandey & S. Anand (Eds.), Water science and sustainability sustainable development goals series. Cham: Springer.

Shukla, R., Khare, D., Tiwari, P., Mishra, P. K., & Gupta, S. (2017). Analysis of long term temperature trend for Madhya Pradesh, India (1901–2005). Current World Environment: an International Research Journal of Environmental Sciences . https://doi.org/10.12944/CWE.12.1.09

Shukla, P. K., George, J. P., & Pratibha, B. (2020). Analysis of temporal temperature change pattern: case study of Damoh district in Madhya Pradesh. Clim Chang Environ Sustain . https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-642X.2020.00008.3

Thomas, T., Jaiswal, R. K., Nayak, P. C., & Ghosh, N. C. (2014). Comprehensive evaluation of the changing drought characteristics in Bundelkhand region of Central India. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 127 , 163.

Thomas, T., & Swetalina, N. (2016). Evaluation of hydrological drought characteristics for Bearma basin in Bundelkhand region of central india. Proc Technol, 24 , 85–92.

Thomas, T., Ghosh, N. C., & Sudheer, K. P. (2021). Optimal reservoir operation–a climate change adaptation strategy for Narmada basin in central India. Journal of Hydrology, 598 , 126238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126238

Tiwari, S., Kar, S. C., & Bhatla, R. (2018). Dynamic downscaling over western Himalayas: impact of cloud microphysics schemes. Atmospheric Research, 201 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.10.00

Trenberth, K. (2011). Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim Res, 47 (1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953

Tripathi, M. K., Srivastava, S. C., Jitendra, S., Yadava, H. S., & Tomar, S. S. (2014). Analysis of rainfall and drought occurrence in districts of Madhya Pradesh. Environment and Ecology, 34 (1A), 372–376.

Vimal, M., Reepal, S., & Amit, G. (2016). Climate change in Madhya Pradesh: indicators, impacts and adaptation . Ahmedabad: IIM.

Yang, L., Feng, Qi., Yin, Z., Wen, X., Si, J., Li, C., & Deo, R. C. (2017). Identifying separate impacts of climate and land use/cover change on hydrological processes in upper stream of Heihe river Northwest China. Hydrological Processes, 31 (5), 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11098

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhang, L., Nan, Z., Xu, Y., & Li, S. (2016). Hydrological impacts of land use change and climate variability in the headwater region of the Heihe river basin Northwest China. PLoS ONE, 11 (6), e0158394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158394

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Central Ground Water Board, North Central Region, Bhopal, for providing support and encouragement in writing this paper.

No funding is involved.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Central Ground Water Board, NCR, Bhopal, India

Sarita Tiwari & Ashok Biswal

Central Ground Water Board, Faridabad, India

Gajanan Ramteke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

First author prepared the manuscript and it is reviewed by second and third author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarita Tiwari .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tiwari, S., Biswal, A. & Ramteke, G. Hydro-meteorological Research Study in Madhya Pradesh, Central India: A Literature Review. Pure Appl. Geophys. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-024-03553-6

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2024

Revised : 24 April 2024

Accepted : 05 August 2024

Published : 16 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-024-03553-6

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

• Hydrometeorology
• Madhya Pradesh
• Extreme events
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Strengthening akis for sustainable agricultural features: insights and innovations from the european union: a literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. data collection procedure, 2.2. identification criteria, 2.3. screening and selection criteria, 2.4. eligibility and inclusion criteria.

• The studies that were carried out or considered the 28 countries in the European Union (including the United Kingdom until 2019 and excluding Romania).
• Studies published in the English Language.
• Studies that were published within the past 11 years (the review covers the period from 2014 to 2024, a period in which the two previous Programming Periods of the Common Agricultural Policy were implemented).
• Studies covering the inclusion of a transparent description of the process of data acquisition and interpretation.
• Studies covering a primary or secondary class investigation on the subject matter.
• Studies showcasing the effects of AKISs and FASs on agricultural knowledge advancement.
• Studies published in a non-English language.
• Studies carried out outside the EU.
• Studies with unclear methodology of data collection and analysis.
• Studies lacking author names and affiliation.
• Studies not covering both the main issues of this review (i.e., AKIS and FAS).

4. Discussion

4.1. akis and fas in the foreground through the new cap, 4.2. improving the effectiveness of an akis, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kuiper, D.; Roling, N.G. Proceedings of the European Seminar on Knowledge Management and Information Technology ; Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 8–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermans, F.; Geerling-Eiff, F.; Potters, J.; Klerkx, L. Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments—Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 88 , 76–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Union Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (EU SCAR). Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition—A Reflection Paper ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Labarthe, P.; Beck, M. CAP and Advisory Services: From Farm Advisory Systems to Innovation Support. EuroChoices 2022 , 21 , 5–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiraly, G.; Vago, S.; Bull, E.; Van der Cruyssen, L.; Arbour, T.; Spanoghe, P.; Van Dijk, L. Information behaviour of farmers, foresters, and advisors in the context of digitalisation in the EU. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2023 , 125 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J. Are advisory services “fit for purpose” to support sustainable soil management? An assessment of advice in Europe. Soil Use Manag. 2019 , 35 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laurent, C.; Nguyen, G.; Triboulet, P.; Ansaloni, M.; Bechtet, N.; Labarthe, P. Institutional continuity and hidden changes in farm advisory services provision: Evidence from farmers’ microAKIS observations in France. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2021 , 28 , 601–624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madureira, L.; Labarthe, P.; Marues, C.S.; Santos, G. Exploring micro AKIS: Farmer-centric evidence on the role of advice in agricultural innovation in Europe. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2022 , 28 , 549–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amerani, E.; Michailidis, A. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in a Changing Environment in Greece. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Hellenic Association of Agricultural Economists, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2–3 November 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiljunen, J.; Jaakkola, D. AKIS and Advisory Services in Finland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Charatsari, C.; Michailidis, A.; Francescone, M.; De Rosa, M.; Aidonis, D.; Bartoli, L.; La Rocca, G.; Camanzi, L.; Lioutas, E.D. Do Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Have the Dynamic Capabilities to Guide the Digital Transition of Short Food Supply Chains? Information 2024 , 15 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masi, M.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y.; Adinolfi, F. The long way to innovation adoption: Insights from precision agriculture. Agric. Food Econ. 2022 , 10 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nordlund, I.; Norrby, T. AKIS and advisory services in Sweden. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Sturel, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in France. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Enfedaque Diaz, L.; Jimenez Gonzalez, A.; Pures Pato, M.A. AKIS and advisory services in Spain. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Almeida, R.; Viveiros, F. AKIS and Advisory Services in Portugal. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Birke, F.; Bae, S.; Schober Gerster-Bentaya, M.; Knierim, A.; Asensio, P.; Kolbeck, M.; Ketelhodt, C. AKIS and Advisory Services in Germany. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Jelakovic, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Croatia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Stankovic, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Serbia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Hrovatic, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovenia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Bachev, H. Governance of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Bulgaria. SSRN Electron. J. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Cyprus. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Kernecker, M.; Erdle, K.; Kraus, T.; Borges, F.; Wurbs, A. Smart farming technology innovations—Insights and reflections from the German Smart-AKIS hub. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 90–91 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Pappa, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Greece. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Coquil, X.; Cerf, M.; Auricoste, C.; Joannon, A.; Barcellini, F.; Cayre, P.; Chizallet, M.; Dedieu, B.; Hostiou, N.; Hellec, F.; et al. Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018 , 38 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lybaert, C.; Debruyne, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Belgium. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dortmans, E.; Van Geel, D.; Van der Velde, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Netherlands. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Gaborne, J.A.; Varga, Z.; Ver, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Hungary. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• de Foliveira, M.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Ferreira, S.; Teixeira, M.; Damαsio, H.; Ferreira, A.D.; Gonηalves, J.M. Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirra, L.; Caputo, N.; Gandolfi, F.; Menna, C. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Campania Region: The challenges facing the first implementation of experimental model. J. Agric. Policy 2020 , 3 , 35–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; Sturla, V.; D’Oronzio, M.A.; Proietti, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Italy. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Todorova, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Bulgaria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dzelme, A.; Zurins, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Latvia. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Matuseviciute, E.; Petraitis, R.; Sakickiene, A.; Titiskyte, L.; Urbanaviciene, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Lithuania. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Zimmer, S.; Stoll, E.; Leimbrock-Rosch, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Luxembourg. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Giagnocavo, C.; de Cara-Garcνa, M.; Gonzαlez, M.; Juan, M.; Marνn-Guirao, J.I.; Mehrabi, S.; Rodrνguez, E.; van der Blom, J.; Crisol-Martνnez, E. Reconnecting Farmers with Nature through Agroecological Transitions: Interacting Niches and Experimentation and the Role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klitgaard, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Denmark. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2019. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; D’Oronzio MA Proietti, P.; Sturla, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Malta. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Boenning, K.; Caggiano, M.; Cristσvγo, A.; Dirimanova, V.; Koehnen, T.; Labarthe, P.; Prager, K. The AKIS Concept and its Relevance in Selected EU Member States. Outlook Agric. 2015 , 44 , 29–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Terziev, V.; Arabska, E. Enhancing Competitiveness and Sustainability of Agri-Food Sector through Market-Oriented Technology Development in Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the III International Scientific Congress Agricultural Machinery, Varna, Bulgaria, 22–25 June 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. AKIS and Advisory Services in Czech Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Kasdorferova, Z.; Palus, H.; Kadlecikova MSvikruhova, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovak Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Boczek, K.; Ambryszewska, K.; Dabrowski, J.; Ulicka, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Poland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J.; Black, J.E.; Chivers, C.-A.; Aznar-Sαnchez, J.A.; Elsen, A.; Frac, M.; Lσpez-Felices, B.; Mayer-Gruner, P.; Skaalsveen, K.; et al. Do Agricultural Advisory Services in Europe Have the Capacity to Support the Transition to Healthy Soils? Land 2022 , 11 , 599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herzog, F.; Neubauer, E. AKIS and Advisory Services in Austria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Banninger, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Switzerland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Maher, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Ireland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Dunne, A.; Markey, A.; Kinsella, J. Examining the reach of public and private agricultural advisory services and farmers’ perceptions of their quality: The case of county Laois in Ireland. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2019 , 25 , 401–414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knuth, U.; Knierim, A. How to strengthen the link between advisors and research in a privatized advisory system?—The case of Brandenburg, Germany. In Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium, Berlin, Germany, 1–4 April 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. The role of the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information in the Czech Agricultural Knowledge Information System. Rural Areas Dev. 2018 , 15 , 49–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klerkx, L.; Straete, E.P.; Kvam, G.T.; Ystad, E.; Harstad RM, B. Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: Case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017 , 23 , 213–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamsalu, H. AKIS and Advisory Services in Estonia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Kania, J.; Zmija, J. Changes in Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems: Case Study of Poland. Visegrad J. Bioeconomy 2016 , 5 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xieyang, C.; Tongsheng, l. Diffusion of Agricultural Technology Innovation: Research Progress of Innovation Diffusion in Chinese Agricultural Science and Technology Praks. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 15008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios G, Kanakaris S, Moulogianni C, Bournaris T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios, Georgios, Spyridon Kanakaris, Christina Moulogianni, and Thomas Bournaris. 2024. "Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, examining gastronomy festivals, a type of event tourism, within the scope of the united nations sustainable development goals.

Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes

ISSN : 1755-4217

Article publication date: 15 August 2024

The aim of this study is to analyze the gastronomy festivals in Türkiye within the scope of the United Nations sustainable development goals.

Design/methodology/approach

In line with this purpose, a systematic review approach, which is a qualitative research method, was adopted as the method of the study. In the study, the data was collected with document analysis technique by accessing secondary sources. Systematic literature review was used to analyze the data.

When the gastronomy-themed festivals in Türkiye are analyzed, it is seen that 23 of them are in line with at least one of the United Nations sustainable development goals. The number of festivals organized in accordance with more than one of these goals is 18. The number of festivals organized in accordance with at least one goal is 5. The fact that only 23 of the 351 festivals in the research universe are organized in accordance with the United Nations sustainable development goals reveals that festivals are insufficient in terms of sustainability.

Research limitations/implications

This study adopts theoretical approaches such as the experience economy, as it provides unforgettable consumption experiences for both producers and consumers participating in gastronomy festivals, and stakeholder theory, as festivals involve many stakeholders. The study also presents practical approaches, such as supporting local development, which is one of the primary objectives of festivals.

Originality/value

This study has revealed the sustainability status of gastronomy festivals in Türkiye which have been taken into consideration more frequently in recent years. It may also contribute to the literature to examine the organized gastronomy festivals within the scope of the UN sustainable development goals.

• Gastronomy festivals
• Event tourism
• United Nations sustainable development goals

Kabacık, M. (2024), "Examining gastronomy festivals, a type of event tourism, within the scope of the United Nations sustainable development goals", Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-07-2024-0170

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 19.8.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Digital Serious Games to Promote Behavior Change in Children With Chronic Diseases: Scoping Review and Development of a Self-Management Learning Framework

Authors of this article:

• Made Ary Sarasmita 1, 2 * , MClinPharm, PhD   ; 
• Ya-Han Lee 1, 3 , MSc   ; 
• Fan-Ying Chan 1 , MSc   ; 
• Hsiang-Yin Chen 1, 3 * , PharmD  

1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

2 Program Study of Pharmacy, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Udayana University, Badung, Indonesia

3 Department of Pharmacy, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Hsiang-Yin Chen, PharmD

Department of Clinical Pharmacy

School of Pharmacy

Taipei Medical University

Health and Science Building, 7th Fl.

250 Wuxing Street

Taipei, 110

Phone: 886 02 2736 1661 ext 6175

Fax:886 02 2736 1661

Email: [email protected]

Background: Digital serious games (SGs) have rapidly become a promising strategy for entertainment-based health education; however, developing SGs for children with chronic diseases remains a challenge.

Objective: In this study, we attempted to provide an updated scope of understanding of the development and evaluation of SG educational tools and develop a framework for SG education development to promote self-management activities and behavior change in children with chronic diseases.

Methods: This study consists of a knowledge base and an analytical base. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. To build the knowledge base, 5 stages of research were developed, including refining the review question (stage 1), searching for studies (stage 2), selecting relevant studies (stage 3), charting the information (stage 4), and collating the results (stage 5). Eligible studies that developed SG prototypes and evaluated SG education for children with chronic diseases were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and peer-reviewed journals. In the analytical base, the context-mechanism-output approach and game taxonomy were used to analyze relevant behavioral theories and essential game elements. Game taxonomy included social features, presentation, narrative and identity, rewards and punishment, and manipulation and control. A total of 2 researchers selected the domains for the included behavioral theories and game elements. The intended SG framework was finalized by assembling SG fragments. Those SG fragments were appropriately reintegrated to visualize a new SG framework.

Results: This scoping review summarized data from 16 randomized controlled trials that evaluated SG education for children with chronic diseases and 14 studies on SG frameworks. It showed that self-determination theory was the most commonly used behavioral theory (9/30, 30%). Game elements included feedback, visual and audio designs, characters, narratives, rewards, challenges, competitions, goals, levels, rules, and tasks. In total, 3 phases of a digital SG framework are proposed in this review: requirements (phase 1), design and development (phase 2), and evaluation (phase 3). A total of 6 steps are described: exploring SG requirements (step 1), identifying target users (step 2), designing an SG prototype (step 3), building the SG prototype (step 4), evaluating the SG prototype (step 5), and marketing and monitoring the use of the SG prototype (step 6). Safety recommendations to use digital SG-based education for children in the post–COVID-19 era were also made.

Conclusions: This review summarizes the fundamental behavioral theories and game elements of the available literature to establish a new theory-driven step-by-step framework. It can support game designers, clinicians, and educators in designing, developing, and evaluating digital, SG-based educational tools to increase self-management activities and promote behavior change in children with chronic diseases.

Introduction

Serious game (SG) educational tools that provide constructive learning with imperative goals for behavior change [ 1 ] are increasingly being applied with children with chronic diseases. Training children to self-care for their chronic diseases is highly challenging due to insufficient cognition [ 2 ], low attendance [ 3 ], complicated treatments [ 4 ], and nonadherence to treatments [ 5 ]. A properly designed SG educational tool can allow children with chronic diseases to enjoy learning how to overcome real-life challenges [ 6 ]. A fully fledged game design provides a safe and controlled environment to experience and practice self-management skills [ 7 ]. Holtz et al [ 8 ] reported that SG education had positive impacts on self-efficacy, adherence, and knowledge, which drove improvements in behavior and health outcomes over time. Directing the design and application of SGs as an educational intervention to positively support children with chronic diseases could help improve therapeutic outcomes [ 9 ].

Behavioral sciences offer insights into how to design effective SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases to achieve the dual goals of internal enjoyment and confidence while promoting their self-care abilities. To understand changes in children’s behaviors, basic principles and theories of learning, behavior, and mindset should be identified. The most commonly used theories explaining behavior change include social cognitive theory [ 10 ], self-determination theory (SDT) [ 11 ], and the mindset theory [ 12 ]. Social cognitive theory defines how behavior change can be achieved depending on personal factors, including cognition, capability, self-control, experiences, and expectations, and environmental factors, including emulation, reinforcement, and observation [ 10 ]. SDT addresses motivation and influences children to put themselves in situations in which they are exposed to SG education [ 13 ]. A growth mindset enhances greater resilience and positivity than a fixed mindset when dealing with challenges and failures [ 12 ]. Children with chronic diseases require continuous, specific self-management tasks to achieve levels of their mindset and cognitive development [ 12 ]. Incorporating behavioral theories and instructional learning into game mechanics, including practice tasks and challenges, can facilitate the changing process of a growth mindset and enhance motivation [ 14 ].

SG educational tools require a sophisticated design to avoid several potential negative consequences for children. The World Health Organization has articulated increased screen media use as a major concern due to the risk of addictive behaviors [ 15 ]. Higher gaming behavior is associated with higher levels of social, health, and behavioral problems in children and adolescents [ 16 , 17 ]. Playing SG interventions can promote behavior changes; however, uncontrolled excessive gaming may lead to gaming disorders [ 18 ] when games are used above the level of a child’s age and mindset [ 19 ]. It has also been reported that a large proportion of electronic games may have violent content such as fighting, hitting, destroying, and killing [ 19 ], which increases the risk of aggressive behaviors in children. Inappropriate visual designs and game elements may distract from the educational purposes [ 18 ].

An SG framework that promotes positive behavior change in children is specifically needed because children’s capabilities to respond to emotions and act when encountering difficulties differ from those of adults. Frameworks have been established for developing SG prototypes for adults [ 20 , 21 ]; however, only limited attention has been paid to creating a well-established theoretical SG framework for children. Children are more vulnerable to influences of digital games during their cognitive, social, and emotional development stages [ 2 ]. A stepwise SG framework is warranted to guide researchers in designing and evaluating SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases to maximize advantages and avoid unintended effects. This requires pivotal attention by researchers to creatively develop and design appropriate SG educational tools for children that balance the cornerstones of learning and playing.

The study purpose was to offer an updated scoping review of SG education focused on delivering self-management activities and promoting behavior change for children with chronic diseases. It provided a scope of understanding of the development and evaluation of SG educational tools and developed a systematic methodological SG-based framework for children with chronic diseases. The intended SG framework was designed according to the methodology of scoping reviews Levac et al [ 22 ] and the context-mechanism-output (CMO) approach [ 23 ]. The specific aims were to create two bases: (1) to build a knowledge base that covers all the resources required to design and develop an SG framework and (2) to construct an analytical base by integrating behavioral theories and game elements from the knowledge base to design and visualize the intended SG framework through the CMO approach. The findings of this review can benefit researchers developing and evaluating SG-based learning educational tools for children with chronic diseases.

Study Design

Figure 1 [ 24 - 26 ] describes the process of developing an SG framework for children with chronic diseases using knowledge and analytical bases. This study followed the guidelines of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [ 27 ]. For the knowledge base, relevant studies on developing an SG framework and evaluation of SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases were searched and collated throughout 5 stages to cover all the SG resources required. The analytical base used the CMO approach and game taxonomy to build a theory-based foundation for the proposed SG framework. Relevant behavioral theories and essential game elements from relevant studies were appropriately divided into fragments, compared, and assembled to create a visualization of the proposed SG framework. Discussions were conducted throughout the study to resolve any discrepancies among researchers.

Knowledge Base

There were five stages for building the knowledge base: (1) refining the initial question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting relevant studies, (4) charting the information, and (5) collating the results [ 22 ].

Refining the Review Question (Stage 1)

SGs are digital games that blend concepts of learning and performing attitudes and are enjoyable to play, with challenging goals [ 28 ]. On the basis of the literature, we began exploring the idea of how to develop an SG framework to improve self-management and promote behavior changes in children with chronic diseases. To develop an SG framework, a scientific foundation should be built supported by documented relevant evidence.

Identifying Relevant Studies (Stage 2)

Databases and search strategy.

Relevant studies that had developed and published established SG frameworks and SG prototypes for children with chronic diseases were searched for using electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. A hand searching method was also used to obtain additional relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals that focused on game research and were indexed in Web of Science, such as Games for Health Journal and JMIR Serious Games . We searched for articles using keywords obtained from Medical Subject Heading terms, such as “computer game,” “video game,” and “children,” with no restriction on publication year (1980-2024). The panel in Multimedia Appendix 1 shows keyword term variations, and detailed search strategies are described in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Reference lists of articles found through the electronic database searching were hand searched to obtain additional relevant information.

Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were (1) studies involving children aged 5 to 14 years, (2) studies that developed an SG framework for children with chronic diseases, and (3) studies that applied and evaluated the use of SG education for children with chronic diseases. Relevant articles were classified into two groups: (1) studies that focused on developing an SG framework and (2) studies that focused on evaluating SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases. Review or original articles explaining learning theories, behavioral theories, game theories, and game elements or presenting a general or specific SG model or framework that focused on behavior changes in children were included in the “SG framework studies” group. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that implemented and evaluated SG-based educational tools for children with chronic diseases were included in the “SG education studies/RCTs” group.

SG-based education is described as the use of SG prototypes or interventions, which are also known as computer games, for educational health and promotion of treatments, health education, patient adherence, therapeutic and side effect monitoring, and patient engagement. In this study, any changes in health-related outcomes in an RCT were descriptively reported. Clinical outcomes referred to any reduction in symptoms of chronic diseases and risks of complications, emergency visits, and hospitalizations. Humanistic outcomes were considered to be any condition that affected physical and social functions [ 29 ], including changes in attitudes and behaviors, adherence to treatment and medication, knowledge, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

Selecting Relevant Studies (Stage 3)

The collected articles were initially imported into reference manager software (EndNote version 20; Clarivate Analysis). After removing duplicates, 2 researchers (MAS and YHL) independently assessed the articles using the inclusion criteria by examining titles and abstracts. Abstracts that met the inclusion criteria were retained for full-text review.

Charting the Information (Stage 4)

Characteristics of SG education for children with chronic diseases that were evaluated in RCTs were charted into a table, including authors’ information, conditions, target ages, interventions, comparators, sample sizes, study duration, length of the study, and health-related outcomes. Data were summarized by 2 authors (MAS and YHL). Disagreements were resolved through discussion involving a third reviewer (HYC).

Collating the Results (Stage 5)

The components of SGs were collated from the included studies using the CMO approach [ 23 ]. According to the CMO approach, “context” consists of any fundamental principles that enhance the efficacy of SG education to induce behavior changes, including behavioral theories, learning theories, and game theories. “Mechanism” refers to rules of how a game works, the dynamics through which children interact in response to the game, and the game’s appearance. It includes game elements to actively engage and motivate target users to perform self-management activities and positive behaviors. “Output” is related to any outcomes, study output, or study prototype.

Analytical Base

Identifying sg components.

Components of SG educational tools comprise behavioral theories, learning theories, game theories (context), and game taxonomy (mechanism). Behavioral theories and game elements were identified after collating all the included studies. Details of the identified SG components based on the CMO approach are presented in Tables S2 and S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . The most often used behavioral theories were selected for inclusion in the analysis (n=9), as shown in Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Detailed categories of the game taxonomy are shown in Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 presents SDT domains, consisting of the psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness to boost motivation. The autonomy domain refers to how users make decisions and boost the sense of control, such as adjusting choices, levels, and difficulties [ 11 ]. The sense of control evokes autonomy and fuels users’ willingness to continue playing. Competence refers to achieving targeted goals of successful actions, such as challenges, learning tasks, competitions, and rewards [ 11 ]. Relatedness expresses how children interact and how their interactions affect others within the game, such as avatars, feedback, and emotions [ 11 ]. Game taxonomy was applied to identify game elements in all studies, including social features, presentation, narrative, identity, rewards and punishments, and manipulation and control [ 30 ]. A total of 3 domains of SDT and 5 categories of game taxonomy intersected based on similar characteristics. Those elements were reintegrated to build new, appropriate game elements for children with chronic diseases. These SG components are reviewed and discussed throughout the analysis.

Assembling SG Fragments and Visualizing an SG Framework

SG fragments describe the strategies or systematic procedures for designing, developing, and evaluating SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases. After identifying SG components through SDT and game taxonomy, 2 researchers (MAS and YHL) individually analyzed SG framework studies (n=14) based on their step-by-step procedural techniques (fragments). The collected fragments were appropriately assembled into 5 steps following the method by Khaleghi et al [ 24 ]: objective definitions (step 1); users’ needs and game element identification (step 2); game concept generation, game mechanics selection, and prototyping (step 3); implementation (step 4); and monitoring (step 5). Fragments of SG development were appropriately reintegrated to build a new SG framework.

Fragments for building up a new SG framework were established and consisted of 3 main phases (requirements, design and development, and evaluation). Each main phase was redesigned to formulate 2 procedural steps and generate output materials. A proposed SG framework was visualized by one researcher (MAS) and then carefully reviewed by 2 other authors (YHL and HYC). Following the method by Carvalho et al [ 25 ], a game structure was designed to supplement the SG framework to explain the actions, tools, and achieved goals of learning and gaming (Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The process of assembling the SG fragments and then visualizing the SG framework and game structure were discussed among the 3 researchers throughout the study.

We retrieved 1947 articles from PubMed (n=451, 23.16%), Embase (n=131, 6.73%), Google Search (n=512, 26.3%), Google Scholar (n=130, 6.68%), JMIR Serious Games (n=272, 13.97%), and Games for Health Journal (n=451, 23.16%). After removing duplicates, 738 full-text articles were reviewed. In total, 30 articles were included in the scoping review, consisting of 16 (53%) RCTs that evaluated SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases and 14 (47%) studies on SG frameworks ( Figure 2 ).

Charting the Information

Table 1 describes the included 16 RCTs that evaluated the use of SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases. SG educational tools that blended the concepts of learning and gaming were developed for children with asthma (7/16, 44%) [ 31 - 37 ], obesity and risk of diabetes or only diabetes (4/16, 25%) [ 38 - 41 ], cancer (2/16, 13%) [ 42 , 43 ], cystic fibrosis (1/16, 6%) [ 44 ], cerebral palsy (1/15, 6%) [ 45 ], and HIV or AIDS (1/15, 6%) [ 46 ]. The number of study participants ranged from 10 to 375; however, 60% (9/15) of the studies had <100 participants, as shown in Table 1 . SG educational tools were delivered to children whose ages ranged from 3 to 17 years, with an average duration of play of approximately 40 minutes.

A total of 47% (7/15) of the studies reported improvements in clinical outcomes, including improved energy expenditure, heart rate, and blood pressure [ 31 ], or reduced symptoms, such as dyspnea and fatigue [ 31 - 33 , 44 ], as well as fewer hospitalizations [ 32 ] and unscheduled physician visits [ 38 ]. Regarding humanistic outcomes, 87% (13/15) of the RCTs evaluated behavioral outcomes. In total, 47% (7/15) of the studies presented improvements in knowledge, and 40% (6/15) reported improvements in behaviors, including asthma self-management [ 32 , 33 ], healthy dietary habits [ 39 ], communication with parents [ 38 ], disease-related risk communication [ 46 ], and lower medication use [ 34 ]. A total of 100% (15/15) of the studies evaluated users’ acceptance and satisfaction, resulting in 100% (15/15) of the RCTs showing positive acceptance toward SG educational tools and consideration of SG educational tools as enjoyable strategies for learning and practicing self-management tasks. None of the 15 RCTs evaluated economic outcomes.

a FeNO: fractional exhaled nitric oxide.

Collating SG Components

Table 2 describes essential components of the SG-based education for developing the proposed SG framework based on the CMO approach (N=30). For context, several studies applied behavioral theories (23/30, 77%) and game theories (22/30, 73%). Regarding mechanisms , several aspects were concerned with embedding social features or feedback (28/30, 93%); presentation or esthetics (30/30, 100%); personalization, including narratives (24/30, 80%), characters (23/30, 77%), and rewards and punishments (26/30, 87%); and manipulation and control, including game genre or rules (23/30, 77%), game goals (28/30, 93%), and challenges (27/30, 90%). Regarding output, 27% (8/30) of the studies generated specific SG frameworks for children with chronic illnesses, including children with diabetes [ 39 , 40 , 47 , 48 ], children with cystic fibrosis [ 49 ], and children who needed physical rehabilitation [ 24 , 50 , 51 ]. The most commonly used behavioral theory in the studies was SDT (9/30, 30%). Relevant studies that used SDT as the behavioral theory foundation are identified in Table S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Game elements from all the included studies (N=30) are described in Table S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

a Not applicable.

Table 3 summarizes the intersection of the 3 domains of SDT and 5 categories of game taxonomy (n=9). On the basis of our findings, game elements that should be inserted in a proposed SG framework for children with chronic diseases include feedback, such as tailored messages and links to social media (social); visual designs, such as images, videos, animations, and cartoons, and audio designs, such as music and sounds (presentation); avatars, characters, and emotions (identity); storyline (narrative); rewards and progress bar (rewards and punishments); and challenges, choices, competitions, goals, rules, levels, and tasks (manipulation and control). Details of the intersection of SDT and game taxonomy (n=9) are described in Table S8 in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

b NR: not reported.

Assembling SG Fragments and Visualizing the Framework

Table 4 presents the determination of SG fragments from the included studies (14/30, 47%) and then assembles those SG fragments into a proposed SG framework. Each existing study offered different procedural steps for developing an SG prototype, yet the game elements and behavioral theories complemented each other. Only 50% (7/14) of the studies created SG prototypes [ 24 , 25 , 40 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 53 ]. Of the 14 SG framework studies, 3 (21%) specifically targeted self-management activities [ 21 , 41 , 47 ]. On the basis of these findings, we reintegrated those fragments into 3 main phases with 6 step-by-step procedural techniques.

In phase 1 (requirements), there are 2 important steps, including exploring the idea and SG requirements (step 1) using literature reviews and identifying target users’ needs (step 2) using iterative discussions or interviews. The outputs of phase 1 are relevant theories, game taxonomy, and children’s needs and preferences. In phase 2 (design and development), 2 steps should be considered by designers, including designing the game elements and educative materials (step 3) and building an SG prototype (step 4) using appropriate software programs and hardware equipment. The output of phase 2 is the SG prototype with a game structure. The final phase is phase 3 (evaluation), which is concerned with evaluating the SG prototype using a clinical trial design (step 5) and marketing the SG and monitoring its use (step 6) throughout clinic-based practice. Outputs of phase 3 are health outcome results and the final SG prototype with recommendations for its use.

a Present or reported.

The Proposed SG Framework

On the basis of our knowledge base and analytical base, we propose a new SG-based framework that integrates the principles of SDT and game elements into self-management practices, titled Self-Management Interactive Learning and Entertainment for children with chronic diseases, as presented in Figure 3 . It consists of 3 main phases, starting from the requirements of SG educational tools (phase 1), design and development (phase 2), and evaluation of the SG educational tools (phase 3). In total, 2 procedural steps are included in each phase, resulting in 6 procedural steps. Each step has input materials as the foundation to support the actions and process and to produce output materials. Output materials in the first phase (phase 1) can be used as the input for the next phase (phase 2), and so forth. Each phase has critical points, revisions, and adjustments that should be considered by any game designer, researcher, or health care provider who would like to create an SG educational tool. Each game should be suitable for target users and their conditions; for example, an SG educational tool for children with asthma should have specific learning materials (asthma action plans and asthma medications), target goals (improved quality of life), and tasks and challenges (asthma self-management activities, breathing technique, and proper asthma medication use) that might differ from those of other diseases. Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 shows the gaming and learning structure of an SG prototype that blends SDT domains and game elements. The mechanism of how players achieve the target goal by accomplishing challenges should be set in clear game rules. Children will make their first choice by selecting an avatar or character, directly engaging with the game. Learning materials will help children understand their disease management, yet the game instructions will help them simultaneously observe challenges and tasks. After completing the tasks, their performance should be rewarded through points or a performance meter.

Exploring SG Requirements (Step 1)

A robust theoretical SG-based foundation should be established using literature reviews that gather principles of learning theories, behavioral theories, and game theories. This step is aimed at exploring SG requirements by searching for evidence related to game-based behavior change programs for children using electronic databases, for example, behavioral and game theories. If such evidence is not available, it is recommended to consult established game developers and collect perspectives from target audiences regarding obstacles in their daily lives [ 21 ]. According to Bramer et al [ 56 ], critical points include how to determine a clear and focused research question, how to choose databases and interfaces to begin, how to use an appropriate search technique, and how to document and translate collected documents. After determining relevant SG literature, game elements and behavioral theories should be translated and adopted for use by children with chronic diseases. Relevant articles can be used as inputs to conduct iterative discussions to identify users’ needs.

Identifying Target Users (Step 2)

Step 2 began through iterative discussions with a multidisciplinary, collaborative team. The iterative approach refers to the iterative process of refining, creating, and revising a project until agreement is achieved, and it is commonly used for agile software development [ 57 ]. The aim of this step is to collect perspectives on identifying users’ profiles and needs, their daily difficulties and barriers related to their chronic conditions, and target outcomes [ 7 ]. In this step, critical points emphasize what the players’ backgrounds are, what age groups are considered, to which chronic conditions would the SG educational tool be applied, how many users would be involved in the game, and what outcomes need to be achieved [ 53 ]. A multidisciplinary team consisting of pediatricians, child psychologists, child educators, game prototype designers, and multimedia experts [ 54 ] needs to identify resilient attitudes and consistent stimuli that suit children’s characteristics. Designers should carefully identify users’ cultures, beliefs, mindset, and literacy to concisely adopt those preferences into the game’s elements [ 24 ]. Directly involving children through focus group discussions or in-depth interviews will help the team gamify self-management tasks based on their needs and level of understanding, including medication adherence, physical exercise, and maintenance of healthy dietary habits.

Designing the SG Prototype (Step 3)

A key driver for successful SG education is consolidating a balance between self-management tasks (serious) and game elements (entertainment) [ 6 , 58 ]. This step aims to design the mechanism and user interface of the game itself by consolidating the most appropriate behavioral theories, learning materials, and game elements. Designers begin to create a prototype after establishing selected relevant theories, game elements, and users’ needs and outcomes (input). First, designers should elucidate selected, well-established behavioral and learning theories into educational materials and game taxonomy into appropriate game elements for children. Game designers should consider several critical points, including what topics are inserted into the learning materials, which game elements are best suited to achieve the desired outcomes, and how interacting with the game can lead to targeted behaviors [ 49 ]. The educational materials should contain disease information, including its pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, treatments and medications, self-management, side effects, the importance of adherence, and daily practices.

It is recommended to insert game elements that offer enjoyment to stimulate children to play, at the same time directly motivating them to learn [ 51 ]. Cartoon characters, genres, and stories represent personalization for children [ 52 ]. To grow children’s mindset, challenges should be designed with competitive levels and rewards provided when a mission is accomplished [ 12 ]. A role model with a positive attitude should be inserted into the SG design to encourage children to become masters of practicing self-management activities. Adding these elements facilitates children responding when confronted with conflicts [ 50 ] and enhances their sense of resilience. It is important to design an SG prototype that mimics real-world circumstances by setting precise goals and instructing players to perform targeted skills over time [ 25 ]. It is also suggested to embed the features of feedback, a progress bar, or trend alerts to evaluate their performance after completing the challenges.

Building the SG Prototype (Step 4)

Step 4 aims to develop an actual prototype based on the selected behavioral theories and game elements. It requires extensive discussions with researchers, multimedia experts, and the game industry to integrate the technology into a game console. A graphic user interface should be built to present the set of game rules. Designers may consider facilitating level adjustments if children fail to win to maintain the developed mindset. Critical points are how the prototype can be built for efficient learning and playing, how to perform such tasks, and how to rapidly respond regarding those performances. Esthetics is an essential aspect to be considered. Game visuals can be appropriately created using 2D or 3D formats [ 55 ]. Music and animation can be added to enhance excitement and enjoyment. To effectively promote self-management tasks, virtual reality SGs should be equipped with body movement tools that specifically target childhood chronic diseases that involve physical disabilities [ 50 ]. Moreover, privacy should be protected because SG prototypes can be used in multiplayer settings, and the accessibility to enter measured data should be restricted [ 13 ].

Evaluating the SG Prototype (Step 5)

Step 5 focuses on evaluating the efficacy of the SG educational tools and unexpected effects after implementation. This step allows researchers to gather feedback from experts and children for further improvements [ 20 , 59 ]. A pilot test, followed by a clinical trial, is recommended, which quantitatively analyzes how the prototype achieves the intended outcomes and qualitatively explores users’ experiences. An RCT study design is preferred due to its high quality. The ability to perform a task at an expected level and with minimal adverse events may be set as the intended outcome. It should be carefully determined how long participants will be engaged in the game, how many sessions a child needs to reach the goals, and how long it takes to complete a session. A short duration is associated with unfamiliarity with the tasks, whereas a long duration leads to boredom [ 60 ].

Moreover, health outcomes, including clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes, should be periodically evaluated [ 61 ]. Clinical outcomes may include symptom improvement and reduction of morbidity, whereas humanistic outcomes may include knowledge and attitudes, behavior changes, and an improved mindset. As no economic outcomes were available in the studies in this review, researchers are encouraged to evaluate economic outcomes when using the prototype. Possible unexpected impacts of SG interventions on aggressive behaviors should also be evaluated, especially for SG interventions that encompass violent elements [ 62 , 63 ]. Continued discussions with clinicians are still relevant to ensure that the game world setting can be applied to the real world.

Marketing and Monitoring Use of the Prototype (Step 6)

Disseminating and promoting a well-evaluated SG educational tool can enhance access to a broader population that may benefit the most and promptly inform the game industry to invest in such interventions. Commercialization of an SG educational tool for children remains a challenge due to the need for high-end technologies, animated multimedia design, artists, illustrators, and other consoles. Gameplay is rapidly changing due to advances in technology, and it should be developed in line with current modalities to minimize the obsolescence of software and hardware [ 39 ]. To ensure market readiness, business experts should be consulted and involved throughout the process. It is recommended for researchers to accelerate partnerships with the gaming industry for sustainable SG maintenance.

Specific practice skills can be designed in a modest simulation. For example, children with type 1 diabetes should be able to use insulin regularly, exercise, maintain a healthy diet, and be aware of the signs of hypoglycemia. Modest instruction will help clinicians in applying SG education for children with chronic diseases in the real world. It is important to underline that an excellent performance in the game world is not directly associated with mastery in the real world. Practicing self-management skills, such as physical activities and medication use, should regularly be guided by health care professionals. It may be relevant to consult with policy makers and health care associations regarding the establishment of policies and recommendations for appropriate uses of SG educational tools in clinical practice. Postmarketing feedback should continually be collected to improve the SG’s quality.

Principal Findings

This scoping review proposed a digital framework to design SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases. The SG framework consists of 3 main strategies to guide the planning, design and development, and implementation of SG educational tools to allow children to practice self-management skills for their chronic condition. Major considerations of how each step is conceptualized, including a theory-driven foundation, contents of health education, joyful reinforcement, and use of technology, were discussed. The game elements and game structure should engage children’s attention and support them in performing gamified self-management tasks, changing their mindset, and increasing their self-care abilities.

Comparison With Prior Work and Considerations for Using the Proposed Framework

Implementation of SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases has been demonstrated in several previous works [ 8 , 9 , 58 ], specifically concerning health education [ 55 , 64 ], physical activities [ 65 , 66 ], and self-management [ 9 , 67 , 68 ]; however, none of them offer a theory-driven framework for behavior change. It has been suggested that researchers articulate a scientific framework for the design of SG educational tools [ 65 ]. Although behavioral and self-management interventions can be delivered to children from 5 to 18 years of age [ 67 , 68 ], the health educational content is not applicable to the entire age range. Educational materials for children should be supplemented with communication skills, whereas activities for adolescents should focus on self-monitoring and problem-solving [ 69 ]. Multidisciplinary teamwork from conception to marketing is strongly emphasized [ 64 ], which was accommodated in this framework throughout the proposed phases.

As game-based interventions are continually growing, researchers are considering developing SG educational tools for children, but questions about how to get started have been raised. Developing an SG educational tool is expensive; therefore, several aspects should be carefully considered before initiating development of SG educational tools, including securing funding and building a collaborative team [ 69 ]. Developing SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases differs from entertainment-only video games due to their unique components of behavioral theories and learning materials to boost self-management practices and promote positive behavior changes. For example, children with asthma may need knowledge about preventing asthma triggers and adhering to medication, whereas children with cystic fibrosis may need more physical rehabilitation activities than children with other chronic respiratory diseases. Some of them may need specific, scheduled physical activities, whereas others may need the efforts of encouragement or psychological support and companionship. That is why the game design should be able to address those needs.

Establishing a solid team, which involves experienced game developers or game companies, should be noted. Once members are chosen, clear ground responsibilities and expectations regarding the prototype design should be established. The health care professional team can develop appropriate health learning contents and discuss those materials with the game developer team to analyze and resolve potential problems before programming and prototyping. As there is no reimbursement for SG use as a medical treatment [ 69 ], acquiring available funding and resources should be prioritized.

Challenges and Pitfalls of SG Design and Development

Developing appropriate SG educational tools for the specific needs of children with chronic diseases remains a challenge due to the huge investment from ideas to implementation. As the market for SG-based interventions expands across health conditions, there is a trend for SG education to be included as a supportive intervention rather than merely as pure entertainment [ 23 ].

On the basis of our heterogeneous results, the procedure through which SG educational tools deliver content might not be the only key contributor to achieve the targeted goals because the intervention should be focused not only on the learning materials but also on the intertwined mechanism of game elements and the elements of behavioral theory. In the context of game-based learning, self-management practices will be correctly performed if users are enjoying themselves, which means having the propensity to engage, blend, and learn. From this perspective, we raised several considerations on the potential of game elements to enhance intrinsic motivation, including how much autonomy (videos, animations or cartoons, choices, and difficulty adjustments of the challenges) must be given to children during play, how can relatedness (narrative or storyline, avatars, characters, and tailored messages) between children and the game be built into SG educational tools, and how can a child’s level of competence be defined to challenge them.

Several critical points in each step were pointed out for game designers to avoid failure. First, there can be failure to define suitable educative materials and targeted behaviors for children with specific difficulties. Second, one can fail to generate a dynamic between players and the game while, at the same time, players have to obtain new learning from the SG educational tools. Game levels were revealed to engage players with a positive learning effect; however, this should be in line with the player’s skills and cognitive development. A high-challenge game with low-skill, fixed-mindset users may induce frustration; meanwhile, a low-challenge game for users with high skills and a growth mindset may generate feelings of triviality [ 6 ]. Given rapid trends in digital technology, SG prototypes should be continually adjusted to prevent them from becoming hackneyed by the time the evaluation trial is finished.

Safety Concerns for Children in the Post–COVID-19 Era

Safety aspects of SG educational tools should be of general concern because these tools are considered a persuasive technology for changing human behaviors. Game-based interventions appear to be most effective in users aged <18 years [ 23 ]; nevertheless, children and adolescents vary in their ability to master a mission. Children may feel engaged with customizable avatars, but some of these may contain violent characters [ 19 ]. Game designers should ensure that the SG intervention is not dangerous or does not increase risks to children, such as by promoting sedentary or aggressive behaviors [ 47 ] or increasing the risk of physical injuries due to practicing skills. Several harmful risks are associated with sleep disorders and internet gaming disorders, such as anxiety, unsuccessful attempts at control, and jeopardizing environments [ 19 , 70 ].

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated concerns about the influence of digital media on the health and cognitive development of children at the ages of 0 to 5 years, and it has proposed limiting screen use to 1 hour per day for children aged 2 to 5 years [ 71 ]. It is also recommended to avoid screen time 1 to 2 hours before bedtime for children and adolescents. In 2020, the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommended the 20-20-20 rule, described as a 20-second break every 20 minutes by looking 20 feet away to prevent and relieve digital eyestrain [ 72 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic intensified gaming behaviors among children, especially during school closures, and this garnered the concern of policy makers and health care professionals [ 15 ]. Sedentary time in children with chronic diseases might have increased [ 73 ] as parents were not well prepared for it due to their attention being focused on social and economic burdens caused by the pandemic. Several SG educational tools were developed during the pandemic to stimulate in-home physical rehabilitation [ 74 , 75 ] and improve anxiety and mood disorders in adolescents [ 76 ], and those positive behavioral outcomes should be maintained. Even though the pandemic situation has improved, some parents are continuing to work remotely while simultaneously caring for children, leading to obstacles to maintaining children’s learning, especially in households of a low socioeconomic status [ 77 ].

Educational, game-based interventions for the post–COVID-19 era should be integrated with appropriate recommendations for their use. Individualized family media use plans are strongly recommended; hence, parental control is central when exposing children to digital media [ 70 ]. It is considered important for parents to accompany their children during screen use to foster an effective learning process by understanding the game structure, supporting children in controlling playing times, and monitoring their activities. Instead of giving punishment as a disciplinary matter, by playing together, parents can understand more about SG educational tools and how they can facilitate parent-child interactions. As parents become familiar with their children’s games, they will be able to encourage their children to achieve the intended outcomes and avoid addictive behaviors [ 78 ].

Limitations

This scoping review has a few limitations. This framework was developed based on a review of the most relevant SG educational tools in several RCTs and SG framework studies instead of a direct participatory approach involving health care professionals and children. When comparing the effects of SG educational tools, most RCTs (9/16, 56%) only captured improvements in humanistic outcomes, such as knowledge [ 57 ] and enjoyment. Studies on improving clinical outcomes were limited, and none provided economic outcome evaluations. This is in line with the findings of a previous review that presented a lack of clinical evidence of the implementation of SG educational tools in children with neurodevelopmental disorders [ 79 ]. Several studies (5/16, 31%) evaluated changes in knowledge over a relatively short duration on beneficial effects on behaviors. Exploration is still needed as to which game elements can have higher effects on self-management and behavior changes. Moreover, issues of maintenance of intended behaviors after exposure to SG interventions should be carefully addressed. With the limitations of the available literature, this framework should be tested in further studies.

Implications of the Study and Further Research

This framework provides a theory-driven step-by-step approach to help health educators, clinicians, game developers, and policy makers more efficiently develop SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases. Understanding how to integrate the power of SG educational tools offers significant promise for promoting health behavior changes. Only 4% of the top-rated health apps apply the concepts of gamification [ 80 ], indicating that the opportunity to develop high-quality SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases is still wide open. Further research should explore the needs for culture-specific SG educational tools and investigate the mediators of behavior change.

Conclusions

A framework of SG-based educational tools promoting self-management activities and behavior changes in children with chronic diseases was developed by incorporating behavioral principles and mechanisms of SGs. It expedites the translation of fundamental behavioral theories and game elements into a scaled-up industrial level in which digital-based game interventions are being created to enhance children’s participation and motivation. The effectiveness of SG educational tools in achieving targeted behaviors depends on key designs and elements of how they address problems and mindsets of children with difficulties. Underpinning appropriate behavioral theories, learning materials, game elements, esthetics, and technology should be considered in all phases of research. The design, development, and evaluation of SG educational tools for children with chronic diseases need to be broadly explored with the support of a well-validated game-based framework and the deployment of advanced technologies.

Acknowledgments

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Authors' Contributions

MAS contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, and visualization. YHL contributed to formal analysis and writing—review and editing. FYC contributed to visualization and writing—review and editing. HYC contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors contributed to data interpretation and manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Supplementary tables and figures.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

• Ferrante G, Licari A, Marseglia GL, La Grutta S. Digital health interventions in children with asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. Feb 2021;51(2):212-220. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dall'Oglio I, Gasperini G, Carlin C, Biagioli V, Gawronski O, Spitaletta G, et al. Self-care in pediatric patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review of theoretical models. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 28, 2021;18(7):3513. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Crimarco A, Mayfield C, Mitchell N, Beets MW, Yin Z, Moore JB. Determinants of attendance at a physical activity focused afterschool program in elementary school children. Int J Exerc Sci. May 1, 2018;11(5):137-151. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Hilliard ME, Hahn A, Ridge AK, Eakin MN, Riekert KA. User preferences and design recommendations for an mHealth app to promote cystic fibrosis self-management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Oct 24, 2014;2(4):e44. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sarasmita MA, Larasanty LP, Kuo LN, Cheng KJ, Chen HY. A computer-based interactive narrative and a serious game for children with asthma: development and content validity analysis. J Med Internet Res. Sep 13, 2021;23(9):e28796. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Drummond D, Hadchouel A, Tesnière A. Serious games for health: three steps forwards. Adv Simul (Lond). Feb 4, 2017;2(1):3. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fitzgerald M, Ratcliffe G. Serious games, gamification, and serious mental illness: a scoping review. Psychiatr Serv. Feb 01, 2020;71(2):170-183. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Holtz BE, Murray K, Park T. Serious games for children with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Games Health J. Oct 2018;7(5):291-301. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Charlier N, Zupancic N, Fieuws S, Denhaerynck K, Zaman B, Moons P. Serious games for improving knowledge and self-management in young people with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jan 2016;23(1):230-239. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. Apr 2004;31(2):143-164. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. Jan 2000;55(1):68-78. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dweck CS, Yeager DS. Mindsets: a view from two eras. Perspect Psychol Sci. May 01, 2019;14(3):481-496. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Thompson D. Incorporating behavioral techniques into a serious videogame for children. Games Health J. Apr 2017;6(2):75-86. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Graafland M, Dankbaar M, Mert A, Lagro J, De Wit-Zuurendonk L, Schuit S, et al. How to systematically assess serious games applied to health care. JMIR Serious Games. Nov 11, 2014;2(2):e11. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dong H, Yang F, Lu X, Hao W. Internet addiction and related psychological factors among children and adolescents in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Front Psychiatry. Sep 2, 2020;11:00751. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li X, Vanderloo LM, Keown-Stoneman CD, Cost KT, Charach A, Maguire JL, et al. Screen use and mental health symptoms in Canadian children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. Dec 01, 2021;4(12):e2140875. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Werling AM, Walitza S, Grünblatt E, Drechsler R. Media use before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown according to parents in a clinically referred sample in child and adolescent psychiatry: results of an online survey in Switzerland. Compr Psychiatry. Aug 2021;109:152260. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhu S, Zhuang Y, Lee P, Li JC, Wong PW. Leisure and problem gaming behaviors among children and adolescents during school closures caused by COVID-19 in Hong Kong: quantitative cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Serious Games. May 07, 2021;9(2):e26808. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Elsayed W. Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on increasing the risks of children's addiction to electronic games from a social work perspective. Heliyon. Dec 2021;7(12):e08503. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mummah SA, Robinson TN, King AC, Gardner CD, Sutton S. IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): a framework and toolkit of strategies for the development of more effective digital interventions to change health behavior. J Med Internet Res. Dec 16, 2016;18(12):e317. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• AlMarshedi A, Wills G, Ranchhod A. Gamifying self-management of chronic illnesses: a mixed-methods study. JMIR Serious Games. Sep 09, 2016;4(2):e14. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. Sep 20, 2010;5:69. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Epstein DS, Zemski A, Enticott J, Barton C. Tabletop board game elements and gamification interventions for health behavior change: realist review and proposal of a game design framework. JMIR Serious Games. Mar 31, 2021;9(1):e23302. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Khaleghi A, Aghaei Z, Mahdavi MA. A gamification framework for cognitive assessment and cognitive training: qualitative study. JMIR Serious Games. May 18, 2021;9(2):e21900. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carvalho MB, Bellotti F, Berta R, De Gloria A, Sedano CI, Hauge JB, et al. An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Comput Educ. Sep 2015;87:166-181. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. Feb 2005;8(1):19-32. [ CrossRef ]
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 02, 2018;169(7):467-473. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Thomas TH, Sivakumar V, Babichenko D, Grieve VL, Klem ML. Mapping behavioral health serious game interventions for adults with chronic illness: scoping review. JMIR Serious Games. Jul 30, 2020;8(3):e18687. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gunter MJ. The role of the ECHO model in outcomes research and clinical practice improvement. Am J Manag Care. Apr 1999;5(4 Suppl):S217-S224. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• King D, Delfabbro P, Griffiths M. Video game structural characteristics: a new psychological taxonomy. Int J Ment Health Addict. Apr 7, 2009;8(1):90-106. [ CrossRef ]
• Gomes EL, Carvalho CR, Peixoto-Souza FS, Teixeira-Carvalho EF, Mendonça JF, Stirbulov R, et al. Active video game exercise training improves the clinical control of asthma in children: randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. Aug 24, 2015;10(8):e0135433. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bartholomew LK, Gold RS, Parcel GS, Czyzewski DI, Sockrider MM, Fernandez M, et al. Watch, discover, think, and act: evaluation of computer-assisted instruction to improve asthma self-management in inner-city children. Patient Educ Couns. Feb 2000;39(2-3):269-280. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rubin DH, Leventhal JM, Sadock RT, Letovsky E, Schottland P, Clemente I, et al. Educational intervention by computer in childhood asthma: a randomized clinical trial testing the use of a new teaching intervention in childhood asthma. Pediatrics. Jan 1986;77(1):1-10. [ Medline ]
• Huss K, Winkelstein M, Nanda J, Naumann P, Sloand E, Huss R. Computer game for inner-city children does not improve asthma outcomes. J Pediatr Health Care. Mar 2003;17(2):72-78. [ CrossRef ]
• McPherson AC, Glazebrook C, Forster D, James C, Smyth A. A randomized, controlled trial of an interactive educational computer package for children with asthma. Pediatrics. Apr 01, 2006;117(4):1046-1054. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shames RS, Sharek P, Mayer M, Robinson TN, Hoyte EG, Gonzalez-Hensley F, et al. Effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management program in at-risk, school-aged children with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Jun 2004;92(6):611-618. [ CrossRef ]
• Yawn BP, Algatt-Bergstrom PJ, Yawn RA, Wollan P, Greco M, Gleason M, et al. An in-school CD-ROM asthma education program. J Sch Health. Apr 09, 2000;70(4):153-159. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Brown SJ, Lieberman DA, Germeny BA, Fan YC, Wilson DM, Pasta DJ. Educational video game for juvenile diabetes: results of a controlled trial. Med Inform (Lond). Jul 12, 1997;22(1):77-89. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Chen TA, Buday R, Beltran A, Dadabhoy H, et al. Videogames that encourage healthy behavior did not alter fasting insulin or other diabetes risks in children: randomized clinical trial. Games Health J. Aug 2019;8(4):257-264. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Thompson D, Buday R, Jago R, Griffith MJ, et al. Video game play, child diet, and physical activity behavior change a randomized clinical trial. Am J Prev Med. Jan 2011;40(1):33-38. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Weiland A, Reiband N, Schäffeler N, Zurstiege G, Giel KE, Zipfel S, et al. A serious game for the prevention of obesity in school children-impact of parent's involvement: a randomized controlled trial. Life (Basel). May 24, 2022;12(6):779. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hamari L, Järvelä LS, Lähteenmäki PM, Arola M, Axelin A, Vahlberg T, et al. The effect of an active video game intervention on physical activity, motor performance, and fatigue in children with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Res Notes. Nov 29, 2019;12(1):784. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kato PM, Cole SW, Bradlyn AS, Pollock BH. A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. Aug 2008;122(2):e305-e317. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Salonini E, Gambazza S, Meneghelli I, Tridello G, Sanguanini M, Cazzarolli C, et al. Active video game playing in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis: exercise or just fun? Respir Care. Aug 21, 2015;60(8):1172-1179. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pin TW, Butler PB. The effect of interactive computer play on balance and functional abilities in children with moderate cerebral palsy: a pilot randomized study. Clin Rehabil. Apr 2019;33(4):704-710. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Winskell K, Sabben G, Akelo V, Ondeng'e K, Obong'o C, Stephenson R, et al. A smartphone game-based intervention (Tumaini) to prevent HIV among young Africans: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Aug 01, 2018;6(8):e10482. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Thompson D, Baranowski T, Buday R, Baranowski J, Thompson V, Jago R, et al. Serious video games for health how behavioral science guided the development of a serious video game. Simul Gaming. Aug 01, 2010;41(4):587-606. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Thompson D, Buday R. Behavioral science in video games for children's diet and physical activity change: key research needs. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Mar 01, 2011;5(2):229-233. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hansen OG. What gamification design do users want in a self-management application for chronic diseases? - The case of cystic fibrosis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 2017. URL: https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2458481 [accessed 2022-04-17]
• Beristain-Colorado MD, Ambros-Antemate JF, Vargas-Treviño M, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez J, Moreno-Rodriguez A, Hernández-Cruz PA, et al. Standardizing the development of serious games for physical rehabilitation: conceptual framework proposal. JMIR Serious Games. Jun 24, 2021;9(2):e25854. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dörrenbächer S, Müller PM, Tröger J, Kray J. Dissociable effects of game elements on motivation and cognition in a task-switching training in middle childhood. Front Psychol. 2014;5:1275. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Starks K. Cognitive behavioral game design: a unified model for designing serious games. Front Psychol. 2014;5:28. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Verschueren S, Buffel C, Vander Stichele G. Developing theory-driven, evidence-based serious games for health: framework based on research community insights. JMIR Serious Games. May 02, 2019;7(2):e11565. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jaccard D, Suppan L, Sanchez E, Huguenin A, Laurent M. The co.LAB generic framework for collaborative design of serious games: development study. JMIR Serious Games. Jul 02, 2021;9(3):e28674. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wattanasoontorn V, Boada I, García R, Sbert M. Serious games for health. Entertain Comput. Dec 2013;4(4):231-247. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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. Oct 04, 2018;106(4):531-541. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Viudes-Carbonell SJ, Gallego-Durán FJ, Llorens-Largo F, Molina-Carmona R. Towards an iterative design for serious games. Sustainability. Mar 17, 2021;13(6):3290. [ CrossRef ]
• Drummond D, Monnier D, Tesnière A, Hadchouel A. A systematic review of serious games in asthma education. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. May 27, 2017;28(3):257-265. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Caserman P, Hoffmann K, Müller P, Schaub M, Straßburg K, Wiemeyer J, et al. Quality criteria for serious games: serious part, game part, and balance. JMIR Serious Games. Jul 24, 2020;8(3):e19037. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buday R, Baranowski T, Thompson D. Fun and games and boredom. Games Health J. Aug 2012;1(4):257-261. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther. 1993;15(6):1121-32; discussion 1120. [ Medline ]
• DeSmet A, Van Ryckeghem D, Compernolle S, Baranowski T, Thompson D, Crombez G, et al. A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion. Prev Med. Dec 2014;69:95-107. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Espinosa-Curiel IE, Pozas-Bogarin EE, Martínez-Miranda J, Pérez-Espinosa H. Relationship between children's enjoyment, user experience satisfaction, and learning in a serious video game for nutrition education: empirical pilot study. JMIR Serious Games. Sep 17, 2020;8(3):e21813. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sharifzadeh N, Kharrazi H, Nazari E, Tabesh H, Edalati Khodabandeh M, Heidari S, et al. Health education serious games targeting health care providers, patients, and public health users: scoping review. JMIR Serious Games. Mar 05, 2020;8(1):e13459. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tabak M, Dekker-van Weering M, van Dijk H, Vollenbroek-Hutten M. Promoting daily physical activity by means of mobile gaming: a review of the state of the art. Games Health J. Dec 2015;4(6):460-469. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bossen D, Broekema A, Visser B, Brons A, Timmerman A, van Etten-Jamaludin F, et al. Effectiveness of serious games to increase physical activity in children with a chronic disease: systematic review with meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Apr 01, 2020;22(4):e14549. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sattoe JN, Bal MI, Roelofs PD, Bal R, Miedema HS, van Staa A. Self-management interventions for young people with chronic conditions: a systematic overview. Patient Educ Couns. Jun 2015;98(6):704-715. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Brigden A, Parslow RM, Linney C, Higson-Sweeney N, Read R, Loades M, et al. How are behavioural interventions delivered to children (5-11 years old): a systematic mapping review. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019;3(1):e000543. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baranowski T, Blumberg F, Buday R, DeSmet A, Fiellin LE, Green CS, et al. Games for health for children-current status and needed research. Games Health J. Feb 2016;5(1):1-12. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Han TS, Cho H, Sung D, Park MH. A systematic review of the impact of COVID-19 on the game addiction of children and adolescents. Front Psychiatry. Aug 18, 2022;13:976601. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Council on Communications and Media. Media and young minds. Pediatrics. Nov 2016;138(5):e20162591. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Boyd K. Computers, digital devices, and eye strain. American Academy of Ophthalmology. URL: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/computer-usage [accessed 2022-04-18]
• Duan L, Shao X, Wang Y, Huang Y, Miao J, Yang X, et al. An investigation of mental health status of children and adolescents in China during the outbreak of COVID-19. J Affect Disord. Oct 01, 2020;275:112-118. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• da Silva TD, da Silva PL, Valenzuela EJ, Dias ED, Simcsik AO, de Carvalho MG, et al. Serious game platform as a possibility for home-based telerehabilitation for individuals with cerebral palsy during COVID-19 quarantine - a cross-sectional pilot study. Front Psychol. Feb 2, 2021;12:622678. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Demers M, Martinie O, Winstein C, Robert MT. Active video games and low-cost virtual reality: an ideal therapeutic modality for children with physical disabilities during a global pandemic. Front Neurol. Dec 14, 2020;11:601898. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dietvorst E, Aukes MA, Legerstee JS, Vreeker A, Hrehovcsik MM, Keijsers L, et al. A smartphone serious game for adolescents (Grow It! App): development, feasibility, and acceptance study. JMIR Form Res. Mar 03, 2022;6(3):e29832. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Oflu A, Bükülmez A, Elmas EG, Tahta E, Çeleğen M. Comparison of screen time and digital gaming habits of Turkish children before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Turk Arch Pediatr. Jan 2021;56(1):22-26. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Király O, Potenza MN, Stein DJ, King DL, Hodgins DC, Saunders JB, et al. Preventing problematic internet use during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus guidance. Compr Psychiatry. Jul 2020;100:152180. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kokol P, Vošner HB, Završnik J, Vermeulen J, Shohieb S, Peinemann F. Serious game-based intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Curr Pediatr Rev. Apr 09, 2020;16(1):26-32. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Edwards EA, Lumsden J, Rivas C, Steed L, Edwards LA, Thiyagarajan A, et al. Gamification for health promotion: systematic review of behaviour change techniques in smartphone apps. BMJ Open. Oct 04, 2016;6(10):e012447. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by S Ma; submitted 06.06.23; peer-reviewed by R Gorantla, K Spruyt, T Baranowski; comments to author 20.12.23; revised version received 13.04.24; accepted 25.06.24; published 19.08.24.

©Made Ary Sarasmita, Ya-Han Lee, Fan-Ying Chan, Hsiang-Yin Chen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 19.08.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.