in literature review process researcher is involved in

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 9:23 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Steps in conducting a literature review.

• Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

Conducting a literature review involves using research databases to identify materials that cover or are related in some sense to the research topic. In some cases the research topic may be so original in its scope that no one has done anything exactly like it, so research that is at least similar or related will provide source material for the literature review. The selection of databases will be driven by the subject matter and the scope of the project.

Selecting Databases -- Most academic libraries now provide access to a majority of their databases and their catalog via a so-called discovery tool. A discovery tool makes searching library systems more "Google-like" in that even the simplest of queries can be entered and results retrieved. However, many times the results are also "Google-like" in the sheer quantity of items retrieved. While a discovery tool can be invaluable for quickly finding a multitude of resources on nearly any topic, there are a number of considerations a researcher should keep in mind when using a discovery tool, especially for the researcher who is attempting a comprehensive literature review.

No discovery tool works with every database subscribed to by a library. Some libraries might subscribe to two or three hundred different research databases covering a large number of subject areas. Competing discovery systems might negotiate agreements with different database vendors in order to provide access to a large range of materials. There will be other vendors with whom agreements are not forthcoming, therefore their materials are not included in the discovery tool results. While this might be of only minor concern for a researcher looking to do a fairly limited research project, the researcher looking to do a comprehensive review of the literature in preparation for writing a master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation will run the risk of missing some materials by limiting the search just to a particular library's discovery system. If only one system covered everything that a researcher could possibly need, libraries would have no need to subscribe to hundreds of different databases. The reality is that no one tool does it all. Not even Google Scholar.

Book collections might be excluded from results delivered by a discovery tool. While many libraries are making results from their own catalogs available via their discovery tools, they might not cover books that are discoverable from other library collections, thus making a search of book collections incomplete. Most libraries subscribe to an international database of library catalogs known as WorldCat. This database will provide comprehensive coverage of books, media, and other physical library materials available in libraries worldwide.

Features available in a particular database might not be available in a discovery tool. Keep in mind that a discovery tool is a search system that enables searching across content from numerous individual databases. An individual database might have search features that cannot be provided through a discovery tool, since the discovery tool is designed to accommodate a large number of systems with a single search. For example, the nursing database  CINAHL  includes the ability to limit a search to specific practice areas, to limit to evidence-based practice, to limit to gender, and to search using medical subject headings, among other things, all specialized facets that are not available in a discovery tool. To have these advanced capabilities, a researcher would need to go directly to  CINAHL  and search it natively.

Some discovery tools are set, by default, to limit search results to those items directly available through a particular library's collections. While many researchers will be most concerned with what is immediately available to them at their own library, a researcher concerned with finding everything that has been done on a particular topic will need to go beyond what's available at his or her home library and include materials that are available elsewhere. Master's and doctoral candidates should take care to notice if their library's discovery tool automatically limits to available materials and broaden the scope to include ALL materials, not just those available.

With the foregoing in mind, a researcher might start a search by using the library's discovery tool and then follow up by reviewing which databases have been included in the search and, more importantly, which databases have not been included. Most libraries will facilitate locating its individual databases through a subject arrangement of some kind. Once those databases that are not discoverable have been identified, the researcher would do well to search them individually to find out if other materials can be identified outside of the discovery tool. One additional tool that a doctoral researcher should of necessity include in a search is ISI's  Web of Knowledge . The two major systems searchable within ISI's  Web  are the  Social Sciences Citation Index  and the  Science Citation Index . The purpose of these two systems is to enable a researcher to determine what research has been cited over the years by any number of researchers and how many times it has been cited.

Formulating an Effective Search Strategy -- Key to performing an effective literature review is selecting search terms that will effectively identify materials that are relevant to the research topic. An initial strategy for selecting search terminology might be to list all possible relevant terms and their synonyms in order to have a working vocabulary for use in the research databases. While an individual subject database will likely use a "controlled vocabulary" to index articles and other materials that are included in the database, the same vocabulary might not be as effective in a database that focuses on a different subject area. For example, terminology that is used frequently in psychological literature might not be as effective in searching a human resources management database. Brainstorming the topic before launching into a search will help a researcher arrive at a good working vocabulary to use when probing the databases for relevant literature.

As materials are identified with the initial search, the researcher will want to keep track of other terminology that could be of use in performing additional searches. Sometimes the most effective search terminology can be found by reading the abstracts of relevant materials located through a library's research databases. For example, an initial search on the concept of "mainstreaming" might lead the researcher to articles that discuss mainstreaming but which also look into the concept of "inclusion" in education. While the terms mainstreaming and inclusion are sometimes used synonymously, they really embody two different approaches to working with students having special needs. Abstracts of articles located in the initial search on mainstreaming will uncover related concepts such as inclusion and help a researcher develop a better, more effective vocabulary for fleshing out the literature review.

In addition to searching using key concepts aligned with the research topic, a researcher likely also will want to search for additional materials produced by key authors who are identified in the initial searches. As a researcher reviews items retrieved in the initial stages of the survey, he or she will begin to notice certain authors coming up over and over in relation to the topic. To make sure that no stone is left unturned, it would be advisable to search the available, relevant library databases for other materials by those key authors, just to make sure something of importance has not been missed. A review of the reference lists for each of the items identified in the search will also help to identify key literature that should be reviewed.

Locating the Materials and Composing the Review -- In many cases the items identified through the library's databases will also be available online through the same or related databases. This, however, is not always the case. When materials are not available online, the researcher should check the library's physical collections (print, media, etc.) to determine if the items are available in the library, itself. For those materials not physically available in the home library, the researcher will use interlibrary loan to procure copies from other libraries or services. While abstracts are extremely useful in identifying the right types of materials, they are no substitute for the actual items, themselves. The thorough researcher will make sure that all the key literature has been retrieved and read thoroughly before proceeding too far with the original research.

The end result of the literature review is a discussion of the central themes in the research and an overview of the significant studies located by the researcher. This discussion serves as the lead section of a paper or article that reports the findings of an original research study and sets the stage for presentation of the original study by providing a review of research that has been conducted prior to the current study. As the researcher conducts his or her own study, other relevant materials might enter into the professional literature. It is the researcher's responsibility to update the literature review with newly released information prior to completing his or her own study.

Updating the Initial Search -- Most research projects will take place over a period of time and are not completed in the short term. Especially in the case of master's and doctoral projects, the research process might take a year or several years to complete. During this time, it will be important for the researcher to periodically review the research that has been going on at the same time as his or her own research. Revisiting the search strategies employed in the initial pass of the ltierature will turn up any new studies that might have come to light since the initial search. Fortunately, most research databases and discovery systems provide researchers with the means for automatically notifying them when new materials matching the search strategy have entered the system. This requires that a researcher sign up for a personal "account" with the database in order to save his or her searches and set up "alerts" when new materials come online. Setting up an account does not involve charges to the researcher; this is all a part of the cost borne by the home library in providing access to the databases.

• << Previous: Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Next: Summary of the Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Doing a literature review: an 8-step process

Overview of my presentation in the Middlesex University PhD coursework - with embedded videos of the 8 steps

Anne-Wil Harzing - Mon 1 Jan 2024 09:31 (updated Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14)

Copyright 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing. All rights reserved. First version, 2 January 2024

Step 1: Information management strategies

Step 2: situating the literature review, step 3: sources of literature, step 4: keeping current, step 5: how much is enough, step 6: different types of papers.

• Step 7a: Seven criteria to evaluate coverage
• Step 7b: Twelve guidelines to evaluate references

Step 8: The literature review in your thesis

Your challenge is very different from what mine was during my PhD. I completed my PhD before the internet was available. So my challenge was to get access to information and find the time and money to do so. Oftentimes, this involved traveling to various libraries across the country.

Your challenge is to manage the wealth of information you have easy access to, but not to waste too much time on completely irrelevant information. This step provides you with some tips on how to approach this.

In this step, you learn why a literature review is important in no less than six of the nine stages of the research process. Before watching it, try and list the stages where you think it might be important.

In this step, we review the various sources you can use for literature reviews: books, journal articles, government and industry resources, working papers, and conference papers. I show you the relative merits of each of these.

Here I share my top tips on how to keep up to date with new publications. You can find more information about this here: How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload? .

Note that my tips focus on the "old-fashioned" tried-and-tested approaches. This process has now been facilitated by many dedicated tools, often using artificial intelligence. I can't say I like working with these as they do not facilitate the deep engagement that I think is needed for academic research, but they might well work for you.

The next step is deciding when to stop. How do you know you have "enough"? When can you stop? Well obviously, you never completely stop reviewing the literature, as it is important in so many stages of the review process (see step 2).

But in deciding when you can start writing up, I do suggest the use of a relevance tree in this video. I also show how you can use tables to effectively summarise literature. Further tips on how many references to use in writing up can be found here: How many references is enough?

In this step, I review three types of papers to look out for to maximise the effectiveness of your literature review: review papers, star papers, model papers.

Step 7a: 7 criteria to evaluate coverage

How do you evaluate whether all the literature you have collected is actually useful for your thesis or article?

In this step I go through seven criteria you can use to evaluate coverage of the collected literature: relevance, currency, reliability, audience, accuracy, scope, and objectivity.

Step 7b: 12 guidelines to evaluate references

If you are going to use the literature to reference arguments in your thesis, this step covers twelve guidelines you can use to evaluate other academics' referencing practices as well as to make sure you do this right. They are also described in detail in this blogpost: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility?

My twelve guidelines are based on research in my own PhD, written up as a paper that turned out to be very hard to publish. If you are interested, you can read the full story here: How to publish an unusual paper? Referencing errors, scholarship & credibility .

This last step reveals what criteria are used to evaluate the literature review in your own thesis: synthesis, critical appraisal, and application to the research question. I also explain what your literature should not look like and why a good literature review helps you to get papers published.

Related blogposts

• Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper
• Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts
• A framework for your literature review article: where to find one?

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14

Anne-Wil Harzing's profile and contact details >>

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

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

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

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

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

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

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

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

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

• Library databases
• Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

The role of the literature review.

Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• demonstrate that you are a well-informed scholar with expertise and knowledge in the field by giving an overview of the current state of the literature
• find a gap in the literature, or address a business or professional issue, depending on your doctoral study program; the literature review will illustrate how your research contributes to the scholarly conversation
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research

Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to search, find out about these new themes, and incorporate them into your review.

The purpose of this guide is to help you through the literature review process. Take some time to look over the resources in order to become familiar with them. The tabs on the left side of this page have additional information.

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Literature review as a dinner party

To think about the role of the literature review, consider this analogy:  pretend that you throw a dinner party for the other researchers working in your topic area. First, you’d need to develop a guest list.

• The guests of honor would be early researchers or theorists; their work likely inspired subsequent studies, ideas, or controversies that the current researchers pursue.
• Then, think about the important current researchers to invite. Which guests might agree with each other?  Which others might provide useful counterpoints?
• You likely won’t be able to include everyone on the guest list, so you may need to choose carefully so that you don’t leave important figures out. 
• Alternatively, if there aren’t many researchers working in your topic area, then your guest list will need to include people working in other, related areas, who can still contribute to the conversation.

After the party, you describe the evening to a friend. You’ll summarize the evening’s conversation. Perhaps one guest made a comment that sparked a conversation, and then you describe who responded and how the topic evolved. There are other conversations to share, too. This is how you synthesize the themes and developments that you find in your research. Thinking about your literature research this way will help you to present your dinner party (and your literature review) in a lively and engaging way.

Short video: Empirical research

Video: How to locate and identify empirical research for your literature review

(6 min 16 sec) Recorded May 2020 Transcript 

Here are some useful resources from the Writing Center, the Office of Research and Doctoral Services, and other departments within the Office of Academic Support. Take some time to look at what is available to help you with your capstone/dissertation.

• Familiarize yourself with Walden support
• Doctoral Capstone Resources website
• Capstone writing resources
• Office of Student Research Administration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Visit the Writing Center

You can watch recorded webinars on the literature review in our Library Webinar Archives .

• Next Page: Scope
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead 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.

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? 

Tip: 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. 

• Look at the Library's research guides in your discipline to select discipline-specific databases.  Don't forget to look at books!
• Make an appointment with or contact your   subject librarian to make sure you aren't missing major databases.

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

5. 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?
• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

Composing your literature review

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

How to write a Literature Review: Literature review process

• Literature review process
• Purpose of a literature review
• Evaluating sources
• Managing sources
• Request a literature search
• Selecting the approach to use
• Quantitative vs qualitative method
• Summary of different research methodologies
• Research design vs research methodology
• Diagram: importance of research
• Attributes of a good research scholar

Step 1: Select a topic

• Select a topic you can manage in the time frame you have to complete your project.
• Establish your research questions and organize your literature into logical categories around the subject/ topic areas of your questions.  Your research questions must be specific enou gh to guide you to the relevant literature.
• Make sure you understand the concept of ‘broader’ and ‘narrower’ terms.  The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the literature.

Step 2: Identify the most relevant sources on your topic

Use a variety of resources - locate books , journals , and documents that contain useful information and ideas on your topic. Internet sites , theses & dissertations , conference papers , ePrints and government or industry reports can also be included. Do not rely solely on electronic full-text material which is more easily available. Reference sources such as dictionaries can assist in defining terminology, and encyclopaedias may provide useful introductions to your topic by experts in the field and will list key references.

Step 3 : Search and refine

• Unisa has a number of databases that provide full text access to articles, that allow you to refine your search to ‘peer reviewed’ journals.  These are scholarly journals which go through a rigorous process of quality assessment by several researchers or subject specialists in the academic community before they are accepted for publication. 
• Use the And, Or, Not operators, Wildcards and Logical Brackets when searching in the databases.  For instance, you can use And to narrow your search while the operator OR expands your search.  Not, on the other hand, helps to exclude irrelevant information from your search results.  Please click here for more information on searching.

Literature review process - an overview

Step 3: search and refine.

• Unisa has a number of  databases  that provide full text access to articles, that allow you to refine your search to ‘peer reviewed’ journals.  These are scholarly journals which go through a rigorous process of quality assessment by several researchers or subject specialists in the academic community before they are accepted for publication. 
• Use the  And, Or, Not  operators,  Wildcards  and  Logical Brackets  when searching in the databases.  For instance, you can use  And  to narrow your search while  the  operator  OR  expands your search.   Not,  on the other hand,   helps to exclude   irrelevant information from your search results.  Please click  here  for more information on searching.

How do I write a literature review

See the chapter below for a helpful overview of the literature review process, especially the sections on how to analyse the literature you have gathered and how to write up your literature review:

Literature Reviews and Bibliographic Searches. 2006. In V. Desai, & R. Potter (Eds.),  Doing Development Research.  (pp. 209-222). London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Available at:  http://0-dx.doi.org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.4135/9781849208925.n22     (A student will be prompted at some stage for his/ her student number and myUnisa password. A staff member will be prompted at some stage for his/ her Unisa Network username and login password).

This book is available in the  Sage Research Methods Online  database.

Step 4: Read and analyse

Group the sources into the  themes  and  sub-themes  of your topic.  As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider what themes or issues connect your sources together.

• Do they present one or different solutions?
• Is there an aspect of the field that is missing?
• How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory?
• Do they reveal a trend in the field?
• A raging debate?
• Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Step 5: Write the literature review

You can organize the review in many ways; for example, you can center the review  historically  (how the topic has been dealt with over time); or center it on the  theoretical positions  surrounding your topic (those for a position vs. those against, for example); or you can focus on how each of your sources contributes to your understanding of your project.

Your literature review should include:

• an  introduction  which explains how your review is organized.
• a  body  which contains the  headings  and  subheadings  that provide a map to show the various perspectives of your argument. In other words the body contains the evaluation of the materials you want to include on your topic.
• a  summary .

Some of the information on this page is indebted to the sources below:

Caldwell College Library

Monmouth University Library

University of Cape Town Libraries

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Purpose of a literature review >>
• Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023 1:32 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/literature_review

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

• "Literature review" defined
• Research Communication Graphic
• Literature Review Steps
• Evaluating information
• Search techniques
• Citing Styles
• Ethical Use of Information
• Research Databases This link opens in a new window
• Get Full Text
• Reading a Scholarly Article
• Author Rights
• Selecting a publisher

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps:

1. Define your topic. The first step is defining your task -- choosing a topic and noting the questions you have about the topic. This will provide a focus that guides your strategy in step II and will provide potential words to use in searches in step III.

2. Develop a strategy. Strategy involves figuring out where the information might be and identifying the best tools for finding those types of sources. The strategy section identifies specific types of research databases to use for specific purposes.

3. Locate the information . In this step, you implement the strategy developed in II in order to actually locate specific articles, books, technical reports, etc.

4. Use and Evaluate the information. Having located relevant and useful material, in step IV you read and analyze the items to determine whether they have value for your project and credibility as sources.

5. Synthesize. In step V, you will make sense of what you've learned and demonstrate your knowledge. You will thoroughly understand, organize and integrate the information --become knowledgeable-- so that you are able to use your own words to support and explain your research project and its relationship to existing research by others.

6. Evaluate your work. At every step along the way, you should evaluate your work. However, this final step is a last check to make sure your work is complete and of high quality.

Continue below to begin working through the process.

5. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem-Solving: the Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

A.  Many students have difficulty selecting a topic. You want to find a topic you find interesting and will enjoy learning more about.

B.   Students often select a topic that is too broad.  You may have a broad topic in mind initially and will need to narrow it.

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.  

1). Try this technique for brainstorming to narrow your focus.   

a) Step 1.  Write down your broad topic.

b) Step 2. Write down a "specific kind" or "specific aspect" of the topic you identified in step 1.  

c) Step 3. Write down an aspect  --such as an attribute or behavior-- of the "specific kind" you identified in step 2.  

d) Step 4.  Continue to add  levels of specificity as needed to get to a focus that is manageable. However, you may want to begin researching the literature before narrowing further to give yourself the opportunity to explore what others are doing and how that might impact the direction that you take for your own research.                     

2) Three examples of using the narrowing technique. These examples start with very, very broad topics, so the topic at step 3 or 4 in these examples would be used for a preliminary search in the literature in order to identify a more specific focus.  Greater specificity than level 3 or 4 will ultimately be necessary for developing a specific research question. And we may discover in our preliminary research that we need to alter the direction that we originally were taking.

a) Example 1.      

             Step 1. information security

                      Step  2. protocols

                              Step 3.  handshake protocol

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.  

            Step 1. information security

                     Step 2. single sign-on authentication

                              Step 3.  analyzing

                                       Step 4. methods

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on methods for analyzing the security of single sign-on authentication

c) Example 3.  The diagram below is an example using the broad topic of "software" to show two potential ways to begin to narrow the topic. 

C. Once you have completed the brainstorming process and your topic is more focused, you can do preliminary research to help you identify a specific research question . 

1) Examine overview sources such as subject-specific encyclopedias and textbooks that are likely to break down your specific topic into sub-topics and to highlight core issues that could serve as possible research questions. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find these encyclopedias]

2). Search the broad topic in a research database that includes scholarly journals and professional magazines (to find technical and scholarly articles) and scan recent article titles for ideas. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find trade and scholarly journal articles]

D. Once you have identified a research question or questions, ask yourself what you need to know to answer the questions. For example,

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

2. What has already been answered by prior research of other scholars?

E.  Use the answers to the questions in C. to identify what words  to use to describe the topic when you are doing searches.

1. Identify key words

a.  For example , if you are investigating "security audits in banking", key terms to combine in your searches would be: security, audits, banking.

2.  Create a list of alternative ways of referring to a key word or phrase

a.For example , "information assurance" may be referred to in various ways such as: "information assurance," "information security," and "computer security."

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

3. As you are searching, pay attention to how others are writing about the topic and add new words or phrases to your searches if appropriate.

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information. 

A. Start by considering what types of source might contain the information you need .  Do you need a dictionary for definitions? a directory for an address? the history of a concept or technique that might be in a book or specialized encyclopedia? today's tech news in an online tech magazine or newspaper?  current research in a journal article? background information that might be in a specialized encyclopedia? data or statistics from a specific organization or website?  Note that you will typically have online access to these source types.

B. This section provides a description of some of the common types of information needed for research.  

1. For technical and business analysis , look for articles in technical and trade magazines . These articles are written by information technology professionals to help other IT professionals do their jobs better. Content might include news on new developments in hardware or software, techniques, tools, and practical advice. Technical journals are also likely to have product ads relevant to information technology workers and to have job ads. Examples iof technical magazines include Network Computing and IEEE Spectrum .

2. To read original research studies , look for articles in scholarly journals and conference proceedings . They will provide articles written by  information technology professionals who are reporting original research; that is, research that has been done by the authors and is being reported for the first time. The audience for original research articles is other information technology scholars and professionals. Examples of scholarly journals include Journal of Applied Security Research , Journal of Management Information Systems , IEEE Transactions on Computers , and ACM Transactions on Information and System Security .

3. For original research being reported to funding agencies , look for technical reports on agency websites. Technical reports are researcher reports to funding agencies about progress on or completion of research funded by the agency.

4. For in-depth, comprehensive information on a topic , look for book-length volumes . All chapters in the book might be written by the same author(s) or might be a collection of separate papers written by different authors.

5. To learn about an unfamiliar topic , use textbooks ,  specialized encyclopedias and handbooks to get get overviews of topics, history/background, and key issues explained.

6. For instructions for hardware, software, networking, etc., look for manuals  that provide step-by-step instructions.

7. For technical details about inventions (devices, instruments, machines), look for patent documents .

C.   NOTE -  In order to search for and find original research studies,  it will help if you  understand  how information is produced, packaged  and  communicated  within your profession. This is explained in the tab  "Research Communication: Graphic."

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

A. Use search tools designed to find the sources you want.  Types of sources were described in section II. above. 

Always feel free to Ask a librarian for assistance when you have questions about where and how locate the information you need.

B. Evaluate the search results (no matter where you find the information)

1. Evaluate the items you find using at least these 5 criteria:

a. accuracy -- is the information reliable and error free?

1) Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?

2) Is there adequate documentation: bibliography, footnotes, credits?

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

b. authority -- is the source of the information reputable?

1) How did you find the source of information: an index to edited/peer-reviewed material, in a bibliography from a published article, etc.?

2) What type of source is it: sensationalistic, popular, scholarly?

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

1) What is the purpose of the information: to inform, persuade, explain, sway opinion, advertise?

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

d. currency -- is the information current? does it cover the time period you need?

e. coverage -- does it provide the evidence or information you need?

2. Is the search producing the material you need? -- the right content? the right quality? right time period? right geographical location? etc. If not, are you using

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

c. are you using the right words to describe the topic?

3. Have you discovered additional terms that should be searched? If so, search those terms.

4. Have you discovered additional questions you need to answer? If so, return to section A above to begin to answer new questions.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

1. Evaluate: Does the material answer your question(s)? -- right content? If not, return to B.

2. Evaluate: Is the material appropriate? -- right quality? If not, return to B.

B. Extract the information from the source : copy/download information, take notes, record citation, keep track of items using a citation manager.

1. Note taking (these steps will help you when you begin to write your thesis and/or document your project.):

a. Write the keywords you use in your searches to avoid duplicating previous searches if you return to search a research database again. Keeping track of keywords used will also save you time if your search is interrupted or you need return and do the search again for some other reason. It will help you remember which search terms worked successfully in which databases

b. Write the citations or record the information needed to cite each article/document you plan to read and use, or make sure that any saved a copy of the article includes all the information needed to cite it. Some article pdf files may not include all of the information needed to cite, and it's a waste of your valuable time to have to go back to search and find the items again in order to be able to cite them. Using citation management software such as EndNote will help keep track of citations and help create bibliographies for your research papers.

c. Write a summary of each article you read and/or why you want to use it.

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

B. Present the information (create report, speech, etc. that communicates)

C. Cite material using the style required by your professor or by the venue (conference, publication, etc.). For help with citation styles, see  Guide to Citing Sources .  A link to the citing guide is also available in the "Get Help" section on the left side of the Library home page

6. Evaluate your work.

VI. Evaluate the paper, speech, or whatever you are using to communicate your research.

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

C. Ask another student or colleague to provide constructive criticism of your paper/project.

• << Previous: Research Communication Graphic
• Next: Evaluating information >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 11:30 AM
• URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy pp 1–15 Cite as

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023

447 Accesses

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Dennis Thomas

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

Elida Zairina

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

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

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

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

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

Download citation

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

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The process of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a complex and non-linear process. It usually involves reiterations of all or any of the following steps:

Conducting a Library search for sources

• Taking notes while critically reading and analysing the literature
• Structuring the literature review
• Styling the language of the literature review.

One of the first and important steps in carrying out a literature review is to conduct an effective Library search which will help you identify the most relevant sources for your research topic.

If you need some assistance with searching the literature strategically, you might want to work through the Strategies and Resources for Searching the Literature module in this collection. Amongst other things, this module will help you to effectively:

• form key words or descriptors for your topic
• create a search query
• find different and relevant types of resources
• use more advanced searching techniques.

Taking notes

Taking effective notes is another key part of the process of writing up your literature review.

There is a variety of ways that one can use to take notes. These include:

• highlighting and writing notes in margins
• drawing a diagram or a mind map
• using the Cornell note-taking system .

In this module, we will focus on using an annotated bibliography as a note-taking technique.

Using an annotated bibliography to take notes

An annotated bibliography can be a useful way of taking notes as you read the literature and think about what you are reading. It allows you to collect both a summary of the key points from different readings as well as a critical assessment of the literature. It also allows you to provide comments about how a text relates both to your own research and to other literature.

An annotated bibliography has two main sections:

• A reference (bibliographic information or citation) in your chosen citation style.
• An annotation (description and comments on the source). The annotation usually provides:
• a summary of the key points or arguments the source makes
• a reflection on how the source contributes to your field of knowledge and how it might be useful in your own research
• a critical analysis or evaluation of the ideas presented.

What to include in a summary?

When writing an annotated bibliography, start with a summary or description for each source. As you read, take notes in your own words of the aim of the research, the methodologies that have been used, the main arguments and overall findings, and the scope and limitations of the study. This will form the basis of your summary which will be in the form of a coherent 50–100-word paragraph or just two or three sentences.

How to reflect on the relevance of a source to your own research?

Writing a reflection for your annotated bibliography includes writing a few sentences explaining in what ways the source is useful for, or relates to, the overall theme of your research. This section of the annotation will be particularly helpful when you come to building an argument for your research in your literature review.

Ask yourself:

• What does this source contribute to the ideas I am developing in my research or to the argument/s I am making?

It is worth mentioning that while your reflection states your personal ideas and evaluations, it should still be objective and unemotional.

What to include in a critical analysis?

• What are the strengths and limitations of the source in terms of aim, methodology, and findings?
• Are the findings sound, logical and well researched?
• Is the source original, important and of a high standard?
• How does this source add to the research in the field?
• Where is its place — and relationship — in the wider field of research and scholarly discussions?

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

The Art of Conducting a Systematic Literature Review (SLR): Expert Advice for Researchers

Introduction

Difference between an slr and a traditional literature review, preparation, searching for studies, appraising the quality of the studies, synthesizing the results of the studies, reporting the results of the review, writing the conclusion, how do i deal with missing data in my slr, pros and cons of conducting systematic literature review, reference papers for systematic literature review.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a key part of many research initiatives, especially those in the academic and scientific sectors. In order to synthesize the current state of knowledge, identify knowledge gaps, and reach conclusions about the present state of knowledge, an SLR entails undertaking a thorough and in-depth examination of the existing literature on a particular topic.

SLRs are essential for researchers to advance knowledge and comprehension of a certain subject of study. Scholars can demonstrate their command of the literature in their field of study and their capacity for critical study evaluation by performing an SLR.

In this article, we will discuss the key steps involved in writing an SLR paper, as well as some of the challenges and tips for writing a successful and impactful SLR.

A systematic, open, and evidence-based literature review is known as a systematic literature review (SLR). It uses a strict and organized procedure to track down, evaluate critically, and synthesize the available data regarding a certain research subject. A conventional literature review, in comparison, may not adhere to a structured or systematic methodology and is more casual and exploratory in nature.

The degree of rigor, structure, and transparency in the research process is the primary distinction between an SLR and a conventional literature review. A typical literature review may place more emphasis on the reviewer’s personal thoughts and interpretations than an SLR, which strives to provide a thorough and objective summary of the status of research on a given issue.

I have written a separate article on traditional literature review with the title, How to write a better Survey Paper in 06 easy steps? . You can visit the post for more details.

How to Conduct a Systematic Literature Review?

Preparation is the starting point of any SLR and is critical to the success of the review. It involves several key steps, including selecting the research question, defining the scope of the review, identifying relevant databases and search terms, and defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies.

i. Selecting the Research Question : The first step in preparation is selecting a clear and focused research question. This question should be relevant to the scholar’s field of study and should guide the scope and direction of the review. The research question should be specific enough to allow for a comprehensive review, but broad enough to generate meaningful results.

By following these steps, you can select a focused and relevant research question for your SLR in computer science.

ii. Defining the Scope of the Review : Determining the scope of the review is the next stage after defining the research issue. This entails stating the length of time the review covered, the categories of studies it included, and the locations of those studies. For instance, the review’s scope can cover papers with a specified study design, conducted in a particular nation or region, and published between 2000 and 2020.

By following these steps, you can define a clear and specific scope for your SLR, which will help to ensure that your results are relevant and meaningful.

iii. Identifying Relevant Databases and Search Terms : Finding the pertinent databases and search terms that will be utilised to find papers for the review is the next stage. Utilizing academic databases like Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science as well as additional sources like conference transcripts and grey literature may be necessary for this. To achieve a thorough search, the search phrases should be properly picked and pertinent to the research subject.

By following these steps, you can effectively search for relevant literature in your field, which will serve as the foundation for your SLR.

iv. Defining the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria : The inclusion and exclusion standards for the studies must then be established. Choosing things like the study population, publication date, and study design type may be necessary for this. Only high-quality studies should be included in the review, and the inclusion criteria should be stringent enough to achieve this while still being open-ended enough to allow for a thorough assessment of the literature.

By doing these actions, you can make sure that the studies you include in your SLR are pertinent to the review’s goal and scope. This will aid in generating reliable and insightful results.

In summary, an SLR’s preparation phase is essential to its success. Researchers can make sure that their SLR is well-defined, thorough, and relevant by following these crucial stages, and they can also make sure that they are able to make useful deductions about the existing state of knowledge in their area of interest.

The next phase in performing an SLR is searching for research, which entails using the search terms and databases established during the preparation stage to find pertinent studies. This is commonly done by searching electronic databases, but it is also possible to search other sources like conference proceedings and grey literature.

Electronic database searches are a useful tool for finding many studies on a particular subject. It’s crucial to use numerous databases and the search terms determined during the preparation step when performing a database search. In order to focus their searches, researchers should be careful when utilising Boolean operators like “AND” and “OR.”

This table provides an overview of the key steps involved in conducting an electronic database search as part of an SLR, using a computer science example. This process can help researchers to locate a large number of relevant studies on a given topic and is an important step in the overall SLR process.

ii. Screening the Studies : Finding the studies and screening them for eligibility are the following steps. This entails comparing each study to the inclusion and exclusion standards established during the planning phase. Studies that don’t fit the requirements for inclusion are taken out of the review, while those that do are kept in for additional examination.

Note: The above table is just an example, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria will vary depending on the specific research question and scope of the systematic literature review.

iii. Managing the Studies : The research that is part of the review should be organised to make evaluation and retrieval simple. To do this, you might use a spreadsheet, a database, or reference management software.

Here’s a hypothetical example of a table that could be used to manage the studies in a computer science-related systematic literature review:

This table provides a concise overview of the key information for each study, including the study ID, author(s), year, title, research method, number of participants/samples, and results. By organizing the studies in this manner, it becomes easier to assess the quality and relevance of each study, compare the results of different studies,

In conclusion, searching for studies is an important step in conducting an SLR. By using electronic database searches, screening the studies for eligibility, and managing the studies in an organized manner, researchers can ensure that they have located all relevant studies on their topic of interest and that they are ready to move on to the next stage of the SLR process.

An important part of doing an SLR is assessing the calibre of the research, which entails assessing the calibre of each study that was included in the review. This phase helps to reduce the risk of deriving the wrong conclusions from low-quality studies and helps to guarantee that the review’s findings are supported by high-quality studies.

i.Determining Quality Criteria : Choosing the quality standards to be applied is the first stage in evaluating the studies’ level of quality. These guidelines should be based on acknowledged practices in the field and pertinent to the sort of study being conducted. For a randomised controlled trial, the appropriate sample size, the allocation concealment mechanism, and the blinding of participants and outcome assessors might all be considered as quality criteria.

By following these steps, you can ensure that the studies included in your SLR are of high quality, and that the results of the review are valid and trustworthy. This will help to increase the credibility and impact of your review.

ii. Appraising the Studies : The next stage is to evaluate each reviewed research in light of the quality standards. In order to do this, a conventional quality evaluation tool or a unique tool created especially for the review may be used. Each study’s quality should be systematically recorded, and the final report should contain a summary of the quality findings.

By following these steps, you can ensure that the studies included in your SLR are critically evaluated and that the results of the review are valid and trustworthy. This will help to increase the credibility and impact of your review.

iii. Assessing Risk of Bias : Another crucial component of evaluating the studies’ quality is determining the risk of bias. This entails analysing the potential sources of bias in every study and determining how they might affect the findings. For instance, in a randomised controlled trial, sources of bias could include the selective presentation of data or the lack of participant and outcome assessor blinding.

These steps will help you recognise and evaluate the potential sources of bias in the studies that make up your SLR. This will improve the validity and dependability of your review’s findings.

In conclusion, an important step in doing an SLR is evaluating the calibre of the studies. Researchers may make sure that the findings of their SLR are based on high-quality studies and that they are able to draw meaningful conclusions about their area of interest by utilising quality standards and assessing the possibility of bias. By doing this, they may make sure that their SLR makes a significant contribution to the field and contribute to the legitimacy and reliability of their findings.

Synthesizing the results of the studies is the next step in conducting an SLR and involves summarizing the findings of the studies included in the review. This step helps to identify patterns and trends in the data and to draw meaningful conclusions about the topic of interest.

i. Data Extraction : The pertinent information from each study must be extracted before the findings may be combined. This could entail obtaining information on certain outcomes, like the effect magnitude, or particular variables, like the study population. A systematic record of the extracted data should be kept, and the final report should provide a description of the data extraction procedure.

By following these steps, you can extract relevant data from the studies included in your SLR in a consistent and systematic manner. This will help to increase the validity and reliability of the results of your review.

ii. Data Synthesis : The data that was taken out of the studies must then be combined. This could entail performing meta-analyses, creating narrative summaries of the findings, or summarising the data in tables or figures. The type of data and the makeup of the studies included in the review should guide the process of synthesis selection.

This example demonstrates how the steps for data synthesis can be applied in practice to synthesize the results of multiple studies in a systematic and rigorous manner, in order to draw robust conclusions based on the evidence in the literature.

iii. Drawing Conclusions : Making judgements on the subject of interest is the last step in synthesising the research findings. This could entail highlighting the most important conclusions, pointing out areas of agreement and disagreement, and addressing any data constraints. The findings from the studies cited in the review should be used to support the conclusions, which should be supported by the data.

In conclusion, a crucial component of performing an SLR is synthesising the research findings. Researchers can make sure that their SLR offers an extensive and meaningful overview of the literature on their topic of interest by extracting pertinent data from each study, synthesising the data, and deriving meaningful conclusions. They can contribute significantly to the field and help to improve our understanding of the subject by doing this.

The last step in the procedure entails summarising the review’s findings and presenting them in a clear, succinct manner. This is known as reporting the results of the SLR. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should all be able to access and comprehend the results when they are presented.

i. Organizing the Results : The first step in reporting the results is to organize the information in a logical and easy-to-follow manner. This may involve using headings and subheadings, tables, and figures to summarize the key findings. The results should be presented in a way that is clear and concise, and that accurately reflects the findings of the review.

Here’s the information presented in a tabular format:

ii. Including Key Information : It’s crucial to include vital details in the report, such as the review’s history, its methodologies, the findings of the studies’ quality assessment, and a summary of the conclusions. A discussion of the results’ implications and any data constraints should also be included in the report.

iii. Ensuring Transparency :When presenting the results of an SLR, transparency is essential, and it’s important to make sure that the steps taken and the outcomes of the study’s quality assessment are clearly described. As a result, the conclusions will be more reliable and valid, and other academics will be able to gauge the quality of the review.

Example: In a computer science SLR investigating the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms for image classification, the following transparency measures could be taken:

• Clearly documenting the research question and inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Providing detailed information on the search strategies used to identify relevant studies
• Presenting a comprehensive summary of all studies included, including their methods, results, and limitations
• Making all data and materials used in the SLR, such as the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction forms, available to others.

In conclusion, reporting the results of an SLR is an important step in the process, and requires careful planning and attention to detail. By organizing the information in a logical and easy-to-follow manner, including key information, and ensuring transparency, researchers can ensure that their SLR makes a valuable contribution to the field and that their findings are accessible and understandable to a wide audience.

The conclusion of an SLR is an opportunity for the researchers to summarize the key findings of the review and to draw meaningful conclusions about the topic of interest. The conclusion should be based on the data and should be supported by the results of the studies included in the review.

i. Summarizing the Key Findings: The main conclusions of the review should be outlined in the conclusion, along with any patterns and trends found in the data and any points of agreement or disagreement in the literature. The reader will receive a clear and succinct summary of the body of research on the subject from this.

Here is a table summarizing the key steps involved in summarizing the key findings of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) in computer science:

By following these steps, researchers can effectively summarize the key findings of an SLR, providing valuable insights into the state of the field and the most promising directions for future research.

ii. Drawing Conclusions: The conclusion should then proceed to make inferences regarding the subject of interest in light of the information and findings from the reviewed studies. This can entail summarising the main conclusions, resolving any data limitations, and going over the conclusions’ consequences.

This table provides a step-by-step guide for drawing conclusions in a systematic literature review and gives a concrete example from the field of computer science.

iii. Making Recommendations: The conclusion may, if suitable, also contain suggestions for more study or application. For instance, if there is a gap in the literature, the conclusion can suggest that additional research be done to close it. Similar to this, the review’s findings may recommend that particular therapies be used in practise if it appears that they are more successful than others.

Here’s a tabular representation for the “Making Recommendations” step of a systematic literature review:

To sum up, the conclusion section of an SLR is a crucial step in the review process since it gives the researchers a chance to highlight the most relevant findings and formulate insightful judgements about the subject of interest. The researchers can contribute to expand our understanding of the subject and make a significant contribution to the field by summarising the important findings, coming to conclusions, and offering suggestions for further research or practise.

In an SLR, dealing with missing data depends on the extent and importance of the missing information. There are several approaches to handling missing data, including:

• Listwise deletion: This involves excluding any studies with missing data from the analysis. This approach is suitable when the amount of missing data is small.
• Imputation: This involves estimating missing values based on available data. There are several methods of imputation, including mean imputation, median imputation, and multiple imputation.
• Maximum likelihood estimation: This involves estimating the missing values based on a statistical model that takes into account the observed data and the assumptions about the missing data.
• Sensitivity analysis: This involves repeating the analysis with different assumptions about the missing data to assess the robustness of the results.

Ultimately, the choice of method for dealing with missing data will depend on the specifics of the SLR, the amount of missing data, and the importance of the missing information.

Pros of Systematic Literature Review:

• Comprehensive and In-Depth Analysis: SLR provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the existing literature on a specific topic, allowing for a thorough understanding of the current state of research in the field.
• Evidence-Based: SLR is based on rigorous and systematic methods, ensuring that the results are evidence-based and reliable.
• Enhances Research Credibility: By following a systematic and structured approach, SLR enhances the credibility and rigor of research, making the results more convincing and trustworthy.
• Improves Research Quality: By critically evaluating existing literature, SLR helps to identify gaps in the research, improving the overall quality of the research.
• Increases Research Productivity: By synthesizing existing literature and identifying trends and patterns, SLR can increase research productivity by reducing the time and effort needed to conduct new research.

Cons of Systematic Literature Review:

• Time-Consuming: SLR is a time-consuming process, requiring a significant investment of time and effort to complete.
• Resource Intensive: Conducting an SLR requires significant resources, including access to databases, research papers, and other materials.
• Limited Coverage: SLR may only be applicable to certain types of research, limiting its usefulness in other areas.
• Potential Bias: SLR may be subject to bias, especially if the selection of studies is not done systematically and objectively.
• Costly: Conducting an SLR can be expensive, especially if it requires the use of proprietary databases or other paid resources.

You can refer to the following Systematic Literature Review papers for further understanding.

• Systematic Literature Review on Machine Learning and Student Performance Prediction: Critical Gaps and Possible Remedies

  Boran Sekeroglu  *,† , Rahib Abiyev  † , Ahmet Ilhan  † , Murat Arslan  †  and John Bush Idoko  †

2. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for consumer sentiment analysis

using online reviews :Praphula Kumar Jain  a , Rajendra Pamula  a , Gautam Srivastava 

In conclusion, writing a systematic literature review (SLR) is a comprehensive and rigorous process that requires careful planning and attention to detail. The six key steps involved in conducting an SLR are: Defining the research question, Searching for relevant studies, Selecting studies, Assessing the quality of the studies, Synthesizing the results, and Reporting the results.

Each step of the process is critical to the success of the review and requires careful consideration and attention to detail. By following these steps and paying close attention to the details, researchers can ensure that their SLR makes a valuable contribution to the field and provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the existing literature on the topic of interest.

In addition, by reporting the results in a clear and concise manner, including key information, and ensuring transparency, researchers can help to increase the credibility and reliability of their findings, and make their results accessible and understandable to a wide audience.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• How to Request for Journal Publishing Charge (APC) Discount or Waiver?
• Do Review Papers Count for the Award of a PhD Degree?
• Vinay Kabadi, University of Melbourne, Interview on Award-Winning Research
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Table of Contents

Research Process

Definition:

Research Process is a systematic and structured approach that involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or information to answer a specific research question or solve a particular problem.

Research Process Steps

Research Process Steps are as follows:

Identify the Research Question or Problem

This is the first step in the research process. It involves identifying a problem or question that needs to be addressed. The research question should be specific, relevant, and focused on a particular area of interest.

Conduct a Literature Review

Once the research question has been identified, the next step is to conduct a literature review. This involves reviewing existing research and literature on the topic to identify any gaps in knowledge or areas where further research is needed. A literature review helps to provide a theoretical framework for the research and also ensures that the research is not duplicating previous work.

Formulate a Hypothesis or Research Objectives

Based on the research question and literature review, the researcher can formulate a hypothesis or research objectives. A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested to determine its validity, while research objectives are specific goals that the researcher aims to achieve through the research.

Design a Research Plan and Methodology

This step involves designing a research plan and methodology that will enable the researcher to collect and analyze data to test the hypothesis or achieve the research objectives. The research plan should include details on the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques that will be used.

Collect and Analyze Data

This step involves collecting and analyzing data according to the research plan and methodology. Data can be collected through various methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. The data analysis process involves cleaning and organizing the data, applying statistical and analytical techniques to the data, and interpreting the results.

Interpret the Findings and Draw Conclusions

After analyzing the data, the researcher must interpret the findings and draw conclusions. This involves assessing the validity and reliability of the results and determining whether the hypothesis was supported or not. The researcher must also consider any limitations of the research and discuss the implications of the findings.

Communicate the Results

Finally, the researcher must communicate the results of the research through a research report, presentation, or publication. The research report should provide a detailed account of the research process, including the research question, literature review, research methodology, data analysis, findings, and conclusions. The report should also include recommendations for further research in the area.

Review and Revise

The research process is an iterative one, and it is important to review and revise the research plan and methodology as necessary. Researchers should assess the quality of their data and methods, reflect on their findings, and consider areas for improvement.

Ethical Considerations

Throughout the research process, ethical considerations must be taken into account. This includes ensuring that the research design protects the welfare of research participants, obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality and privacy, and avoiding any potential harm to participants or their communities.

Dissemination and Application

The final step in the research process is to disseminate the findings and apply the research to real-world settings. Researchers can share their findings through academic publications, presentations at conferences, or media coverage. The research can be used to inform policy decisions, develop interventions, or improve practice in the relevant field.

Research Process Example

Following is a Research Process Example:

Research Question : What are the effects of a plant-based diet on athletic performance in high school athletes?

Step 1: Background Research Conduct a literature review to gain a better understanding of the existing research on the topic. Read academic articles and research studies related to plant-based diets, athletic performance, and high school athletes.

Step 2: Develop a Hypothesis Based on the literature review, develop a hypothesis that a plant-based diet positively affects athletic performance in high school athletes.

Step 3: Design the Study Design a study to test the hypothesis. Decide on the study population, sample size, and research methods. For this study, you could use a survey to collect data on dietary habits and athletic performance from a sample of high school athletes who follow a plant-based diet and a sample of high school athletes who do not follow a plant-based diet.

Step 4: Collect Data Distribute the survey to the selected sample and collect data on dietary habits and athletic performance.

Step 5: Analyze Data Use statistical analysis to compare the data from the two samples and determine if there is a significant difference in athletic performance between those who follow a plant-based diet and those who do not.

Step 6 : Interpret Results Interpret the results of the analysis in the context of the research question and hypothesis. Discuss any limitations or potential biases in the study design.

Step 7: Draw Conclusions Based on the results, draw conclusions about whether a plant-based diet has a significant effect on athletic performance in high school athletes. If the hypothesis is supported by the data, discuss potential implications and future research directions.

Step 8: Communicate Findings Communicate the findings of the study in a clear and concise manner. Use appropriate language, visuals, and formats to ensure that the findings are understood and valued.

Applications of Research Process

The research process has numerous applications across a wide range of fields and industries. Some examples of applications of the research process include:

• Scientific research: The research process is widely used in scientific research to investigate phenomena in the natural world and develop new theories or technologies. This includes fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental science.
• Social sciences : The research process is commonly used in social sciences to study human behavior, social structures, and institutions. This includes fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics.
• Education: The research process is used in education to study learning processes, curriculum design, and teaching methodologies. This includes research on student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and educational policy.
• Healthcare: The research process is used in healthcare to investigate medical conditions, develop new treatments, and evaluate healthcare interventions. This includes fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Business and industry : The research process is used in business and industry to study consumer behavior, market trends, and develop new products or services. This includes market research, product development, and customer satisfaction research.
• Government and policy : The research process is used in government and policy to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs, and to inform policy decisions. This includes research on social welfare, crime prevention, and environmental policy.

Purpose of Research Process

The purpose of the research process is to systematically and scientifically investigate a problem or question in order to generate new knowledge or solve a problem. The research process enables researchers to:

• Identify gaps in existing knowledge: By conducting a thorough literature review, researchers can identify gaps in existing knowledge and develop research questions that address these gaps.
• Collect and analyze data : The research process provides a structured approach to collecting and analyzing data. Researchers can use a variety of research methods, including surveys, experiments, and interviews, to collect data that is valid and reliable.
• Test hypotheses : The research process allows researchers to test hypotheses and make evidence-based conclusions. Through the systematic analysis of data, researchers can draw conclusions about the relationships between variables and develop new theories or models.
• Solve problems: The research process can be used to solve practical problems and improve real-world outcomes. For example, researchers can develop interventions to address health or social problems, evaluate the effectiveness of policies or programs, and improve organizational processes.
• Generate new knowledge : The research process is a key way to generate new knowledge and advance understanding in a given field. By conducting rigorous and well-designed research, researchers can make significant contributions to their field and help to shape future research.

Tips for Research Process

Here are some tips for the research process:

• Start with a clear research question : A well-defined research question is the foundation of a successful research project. It should be specific, relevant, and achievable within the given time frame and resources.
• Conduct a thorough literature review: A comprehensive literature review will help you to identify gaps in existing knowledge, build on previous research, and avoid duplication. It will also provide a theoretical framework for your research.
• Choose appropriate research methods: Select research methods that are appropriate for your research question, objectives, and sample size. Ensure that your methods are valid, reliable, and ethical.
• Be organized and systematic: Keep detailed notes throughout the research process, including your research plan, methodology, data collection, and analysis. This will help you to stay organized and ensure that you don’t miss any important details.
• Analyze data rigorously: Use appropriate statistical and analytical techniques to analyze your data. Ensure that your analysis is valid, reliable, and transparent.
• I nterpret results carefully : Interpret your results in the context of your research question and objectives. Consider any limitations or potential biases in your research design, and be cautious in drawing conclusions.
• Communicate effectively: Communicate your research findings clearly and effectively to your target audience. Use appropriate language, visuals, and formats to ensure that your findings are understood and valued.
• Collaborate and seek feedback : Collaborate with other researchers, experts, or stakeholders in your field. Seek feedback on your research design, methods, and findings to ensure that they are relevant, meaningful, and impactful.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

• Open access
• Published: 09 April 2024

Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement

• Janneke M. Groothuijse 1 , 2 ,
• Lisa S. van Tol 1 , 2 ,
• C. C. M. (Toos) Hoeksel-van Leeuwen 1 , 2 ,
• Johannes J. M. van Delden 3 ,
• Monique A. A. Caljouw 1 , 2 &
• Wilco P. Achterberg 1 , 2  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  324 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

72 Accesses

Metrics details

Active involvement of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and long-term care (LTC) users in research is essential but less developed compared to other patient groups. However, their involvement in research is not only important but also feasible. This study aims to provide an overview of methods, facilitators, and barriers for involving PLWD and LTC users in scientific research.

A systematic literature search across 12 databases in December 2020 identified studies involving PLWD, LTC users, or their carers beyond research subjects and describing methods or models for involvement. Qualitative descriptions of involvement methods underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018. A data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the results.

The eighteen included studies delineated five core involvement methods spanning all research phases: advisory groups, formal and informal research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Additionally, two co-research models with PLWD and carers were found, while only two studies detailed LTC user involvement methods. Four distinct involvement roles were identified: consulting and advisory roles, co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. The review also addressed barriers, facilitators, and good practices in the preparation, execution, and translation phases of research, emphasizing the importance of diversity, bias reduction, and resource allocation. Trust-building, clear roles, ongoing training, and inclusive support were highlighted.

Conclusions

Planning enough time for active involvement is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet personal needs and preferences of PLWD, LTC users and carers. Researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons’ ownership of the research process.

Trial registration

Prospero 2021: CRD42021253736.

Peer Review reports

In research characterized by active involvement, the target group plays a pivotal role in shaping research decisions and outcomes, directly impacting them. Involving patients in health research offers significant benefits [ 1 , 2 ]: it enhances participant recruitment [ 2 ], refines research questions [ 2 ], aligns study results with the target population [ 1 , 2 ], and promotes effective implementation of findings [ 1 ]. Active involvement of patients has also benefits for themselves, namely an enhanced understanding of research, building relationships, personal development, improved health and wellbeing, and enjoyment and satisfaction [ 3 , 4 ]. It gives them a sense of purpose and satisfaction through their tangible impact.

However, for long-term care (LTC) users and persons living with dementia (PLWD) active involvement in research is less developed than for other patient groups [ 5 , 6 ]. PLWD and LTC users share similar care needs, encompassing assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), medication management, medical condition monitoring, and emotional support. Furthermore, a substantial portion of LTC users comprises individuals living with dementia [ 7 ]. Additionally, statistical data from the United States reveals that one in four older individuals is likely to reside in long-term care (LTC) facilities [ 8 ], and approximately forty to eighty percent of LTC residents in the United States, Japan, Australia, and England experience dementia or severe memory problems [ 7 , 9 ].

Due to these considerations, we have chosen to combine the target audiences of PLWD and LTC users in our systematic review. However, it's important to note that while there are potential advantages to combining these target groups, there may also be challenges. PLWD and LTC users may have varying needs, preferences, and experiences, including differences in care requirements driven by individual factors like the stage of dementia, coexisting conditions, and personal preferences. Therefore, it's imperative to conduct comprehensive research and involve these communities to ensure that involvement approaches are not only inclusive but also tailored to meet their specific requirements.

Given our ageing population and the intricate health challenges faced by PLWD and LTC users, including their vulnerability and shorter life expectancy in old age, it's crucial to establish effective research involvement methods. These individuals have unique needs and preferences that require attention. They possess a voice, and as researchers, it is our responsibility to not only listen to them but also actively involve them in the research process. Consequently, it is essential to identify means through which the voices of PLWD and LTC users can be effectively heard and ensure that their input is incorporated into research.

Fortunately, publication of studies on involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research is slowly increasing [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. A few reviews have described how PLWD and LTC users were involved [ 5 , 9 , 10 ]. However, with the increasing attention for involvement, the understanding of when involvement is meaningful grows and stricter requirements can be imposed to increase the quality of active involvement [ 12 , 13 ]. To our knowledge there is no up to date overview of involvement methods used with either or both PLWD and LTC users. Such an overview of involvement methods for PWLD and LTC users would provide a valuable, comprehensive resource encompassing various stages of the research cycle and different aspects of involvement. It would equip researchers with the necessary guidance to navigate the complexities of involving PLWD and LTC users in their research projects.

Recognizing the need to enhance the involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research, this systematic review aims to construct a comprehensive overview of the multiple methodologies employed in previous studies, along with an examination of the facilitators and barriers of involvement. Our overarching goal is to promote inclusive and effective involvement practices within the research community. To achieve this objective, this review will address the following questions: (1) What kind of methods are used and how are these methods implemented to facilitate involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research? (2) What are the facilitators and barriers encountered in previous research projects involving PLWD and LTC users?

Protocol and registration

The search and analysis methods were specified in advance in a protocol. The protocol is registered and published in the PROSPERO database with registration number CRD42021253736. The search and analysis methods are also described below more briefly.

Information sources, search strategy, and eligibility criteria

In preparation of the systematic literature search, key articles and reviews about involvement of PLWD and LTC users in research were screened to identify search terms. In addition, Thesaurus and MeSH terms were used to broaden the search. The search was conducted on December 10, 2020, across multiple databases: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. The search terms were entered in "phrases". The search strategy included synonymous and related terms for dementia, LTC user, involvement, research, method, and long-term care. The full search strategy is provided in supplement 1 .

After conducting the search, records underwent initial screening based on titles and abstracts. Selected reports were retrieved for full-text assessment, and studies were evaluated for eligibility based on several criteria. However, no restriction was made regarding publication date. First, to be included studies had to be written in English, German, French, or Dutch. Second, we only included original research studies. Third, studies were excluded when the target group or their representatives were not involved in research, but only participated as research subjects. Fourth, studies were excluded when not describing involvement in research. Therefore, studies concerning involvement in care, policy, or self-help groups were excluded. Fifth, the focus of this systematic review is on methods. Therefore, studies with a main focus on the results, evaluation, ethical issues, and impact of involvement in research were excluded. Additionally, we have not set specific inclusion or exclusion criteria based on study design since our primary focus is on involvement methodologies, regardless of the chosen research design. Sixth, the included studies had to concern the involvement in research of PLWD or adult LTC users, whether living in the community or in institutional settings, as well as informal caregivers or other representatives of these groups who may represent PLWD and LTC users facing limitations. Studies that involved LTC users that were children or ‘young adults’, or their representatives, were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they involved mental healthcare users if it remained unclear if the care that they received entailed more than only treatment from mental healthcare providers, but for example also assistance with ADL.

Terminology

For readability purposes, we use the abbreviation PLWD to refer to persons diagnosed with dementia, and we use the abbreviation LTC users to refer to persons receiving long-term care, at home or as residents living in nursing homes or other residential facilities. We use the term carers to refer to informal caregivers and other representatives of either PLWD or LTC users. As clear and consistent definitions regarding participatory research remains elusive [ 14 , 15 ], we formulated a broad working definition of involvement in research so as not to exclude any approach to participatory research. We defined involvement in research as “research carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ the target group” [ 16 ], where the target group or their representatives take part in the governance or conduct of research and have some degree of ownership of the research [ 12 ]. It concerns involvement in research in which lived experienced experts work alongside research teams. We use the terms participation and participants, to refer to people being part of the research as study subjects.

Selection process, data-collection process, and data items

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by the first and second author (JG and LT). Only the studies that both reviewers agreed and met the inclusion criteria were included in the full-text screening process. Any uncertainty about whether the studies truly described a model or approach for involvement, was resolved by a quick screening of the full-text paper. The full-text screening process was then conducted according to the same procedure by JG and LT. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. If no agreement could be reached, a third researcher (MC) was consulted. References of the included studies were screened for any missing papers.

The following information was collected on a data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel: year and country of publication, topic, research aim, study design, living situation of involved persons (at home or institutionalized), description of involved persons, study participants (study subjects), theories and methods used, type/role(s) of involvement, research phase(s), recruitment, consent approach, study setting, structure of participatory activities, training, resources, facilitators, barriers, ethics, benefits, impact, and definition of involvement used.

JG independently extracted data from all included studies, the involved co-researcher (THL) independently extracted data from two studies, the second author (LT) from five. Differences in the analysis were discussed with the co-researcher (THL) and second author (LT) until consensus was reached. As only minor differences emerged, limited to the facilitator and barrier categories, data from the remaining studies was extracted by JG.

Risk of bias assessment

Every research article identified through the systematic review exclusively comprised qualitative descriptions of the involvement method(s) employed. Consequently, all articles underwent evaluation using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018 [ 17 ], as opposed to the checklists intended for quantitative or mixed methods research. All included studies were independently assessed on quality by two reviewers (JG,LT) and any disagreement was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. The CASP Qualitative Checklist consists of ten questions. The checklist does not provide suggestions on scoring, the first author designed a scoring system: zero points if no description was provided (‘no’), one point if a minimal description was provided (‘can’t tell’) and two points when the question was answered sufficiently (‘yes’). The second question of the checklist, “is a qualitative methodology appropriate”, was not applicable to the aims (i.e., to describe involvement) of the included studies and was therefore excluded. The tenth question was translated into a ‘yes’, ‘can’t tell’, or ‘no’ score to fit the scoring system. A maximum of eighteen points could be assigned.

Synthesis methods

Tables were used to summarize the findings and to acquire an overview of (1) the kinds of methods used to enable involvement of PLWD, LTC users, or carers in scientific research, and (2) the facilitators and barriers for involving this target group in scientific research. As to the first research aim, the headings of the first two tables are based on the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, long form version 2 (GRIPP2-LF) [ 18 ]. Because our systematic review focusses on methods, only the topics belonging to sections two, three, and four were included. Following Shippee et al., three main research phases were distinguished: preparation, execution, and translation [ 19 ]. Furthermore, the following fields were added to the GRIPP2-LF: First author, year of publication, country of study, setting of involvement, frequency of meetings, and a summary description of activities.

Concerning the second research aim, the extracted facilitators, barriers, and good practices were imported per study in ATLAS.ti for qualitative data analysis. Following the method for thematic synthesis of qualitative studies in systematic reviews [ 20 ], all imported barriers, facilitators and good practices were inductively coded staying 'close' to the results of the original studies, which resulted in 50 initial codes. After multiple rounds of pile sorting [ 21 ], based on similarities and differences and discussions in the research team, this long code list was grouped into a total of 27 categories, which were thereafter subsequently organized into 14 descriptive themes within the three research phases (preparation, execution, translation).

Study selection and characteristics

The Prisma Flow Diagram was used to summarize the study selection process [ 22 ]. In the full text screening, 72 of the 93 remaining studies were excluded because they were not original research articles (n = 5), not about involvement (n = 8), not about involvement in a research project (n = 1), they did not describe a model or method for involvement (n = 34), or they were not about PLWD or LTC users (n = 24). The search resulted in 18 publications eligible for analysis (Fig.  1 ).

Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Table 1 presents the general study characteristics. Two studies explicitly aimed to develop a model for involvement or good practice, and both focus on co-research either with PLWD [ 23 ] or their carers [ 13 ]. The other sixteen provide a description of the involvement of PLWD [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ] or LTC users in their research projects [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Quality assessment

Table 1 presents the CASP-score per study [ 17 ]. Five scored 16 to 18 points [ 13 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 35 ], indicating high quality with robust methods, clear aims, and strong data analysis. Eleven scored 12 to 15 [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], showing generally strong methodologies but with some limitations. Two scored 9 or lower [ 25 , 27 ], signifying significant methodological and analytical shortcomings. Notably, these low-scoring studies were short articles lacking clear recommendations for involvement in research.

Design and implementation of involvement

Phases and methods of involvement.

Table 2 describes the involvement methods used for and the implementation of involvement in research. The included studies jointly presented methods for involvement in the three main research phases [ 19 ]. Regarding the preparation phase, which involves the preparatory work for the study, only three studies provided detailed descriptions of the methods employed [ 26 , 30 , 32 ]. The execution phase, encompassing the actual conduct of the research, was most frequently discussed [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Five studies addressed the translation phase [ 13 , 25 , 31 , 36 , 37 ], where the focus shifts to translating research findings into actionable outcomes.

The eighteen studies introduced a variety of involvement methods, categorizable into five groups: 1) advisory groups, 2) research team meetings (both formal and informal), 3) action groups, 4) workshops, and 5) co-research in interviews. In five studies, individuals including PLWD, LTCF residents, carers, and health professionals participated in advisory/reference groups [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], working groups [ 27 ], and panels [ 28 ]. These groups offered valuable feedback on research aspects, spanning protocols, design, questionnaires, and implementation of research. Meetings occurred at varying frequencies - monthly, quarterly, or biannually.

Two studies exemplify diverse research collaboration settings. One involving older individuals within an academic research team of five [ 37 ], and another featuring a doctoral student and a co-researcher conducting informal monthly discussions at a local coffee shop [ 31 ]. Brown et al. sought to minimize power differentials and enhance inclusivity [ 37 ], while Mann and Hung focused on benefiting people with dementia and challenging negative discourse on dementia [ 31 ].

An additional five studies employed methods involving frequent meetings, including action [ 35 , 39 ], inquiry [ 23 ], and discussion groups [ 29 , 36 ] In these groups, involved persons with lived experience contributed to developing a shared vision and community improvements, such as enhancing the mealtime experience in care facilities [ 35 ].

Seven studies involved individuals through workshops, often conducted over one or two sessions. These workshops contributed to generating recommendations [ 37 ], informing future e-health designs [ 29 , 30 ], and ensuring diverse perspectives and lived experiences were included in data analysis [ 13 , 24 , 32 , 33 ]. In three studies, representatives worked as co-researchers in interviews, drawing on personal experiences to enhance the interview process, making it more dementia-appropriate and enriching data collection [ 13 , 32 , 34 ]. Finally, one study involved representatives in the recruitment and conduct of interviews [ 38 ].

People involved

The number of persons involved varied from a single co-researcher [ 31 ] to 34 panel individuals providing feedback on their experiences in a clinical trial [ 28 ]. Thirteen studies focussed on PLWD: eleven involved PLWD themselves [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], one exclusively focused on caregivers [ 13 ], and another one involved people without or with mild cognitive impairment, who participated in a study examining the risks of developing Alzheimer's disease [ 28 ]. Although not all articles provided descriptions of the dementia stage, available information indicated that individuals involved typically fell within the early to mid-stages of dementia [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Next to PLWD and carers, two studies additionally involved organizational or advocacy representatives [ 25 , 27 ]. The other five studies concerned older adults living in a LTC facility. Two of them involved older residents themselves [ 35 , 39 ], the other three carers, older community/client representatives or health care practitioners [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].

Roles and level of involvement

Four general roles could be identified. First, consultation and advisory roles were held by PLWD and carers [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 ], where involved persons share knowledge and experiences to make suggestions [ 32 ], but the research team retained formal decision-making power [ 25 ]. Second, PLWD were involved as co-analysts in data analysis [ 24 , 32 , 33 ]. Co-analysts influence data analysis, but the decision-making power remained with academic researchers [ 24 ]. Third, in six studies the co-researcher role was part of the research design in which involved persons and researchers steer and conduct research together [ 13 , 23 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36 ]. Finally, two studies partnered with LTC residents [ 35 , 39 ], with residents at the core of the group, and positioned as experts by experience [ 39 ]. Residents had the decision-making authority regarding how to improve life in LTC facilities [ 35 ].

Models for involvement in research

Only two studies designed a model for co-research with PLWD [ 23 ] or their carers [ 13 ] across all research phases. These models underscored the importance of iterative training for co-researchers [ 13 , 23 ] and academic researchers [ 23 ]. Furthermore, these studies advocate involving co-researchers early on in the research process [ 13 ] and in steering committees [ 23 ]. Co-researchers can be involved in designing research materials [ 23 ], conducting interviews [ 13 , 23 ], analysing data [ 13 ], and co-disseminating findings [ 13 , 23 ]. Additionally, one study stressed involving PLWD in identifying (future) research priorities [ 23 ].

Barriers, facilitators, and good practices in research phases

Preparation phase.

Table 3 describes the barriers, facilitators, and good practices per main research phase. Lack of diversity in ethnicity and stages of dementia in the recruitment of involved persons is mentioned as a recurring barrier [ 26 , 28 , 32 , 33 ]. The exclusion of people with cognitive impairments is partly due to gatekeepers’ and recruiters’ bias towards cognitively healthy people [ 28 , 32 ]. It is stressed that researchers should refrain from making assumptions about the abilities of PLWD and ask the person what he/she is willing to do [ 31 ]. It is considered good practice to involve people regardless of cognitive abilities [ 23 ], based on skills, various personal characteristics [ 13 ] and, if possible, relevant prior experience [ 38 ].

Many studies stress the importance of building a mutual trusting relationship between involved persons and academic researchers [ 13 , 23 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]. A good relationship is believed to break down social barriers [ 37 ], foster freedom of expression [ 33 ], and thereby avoiding tokenistic involvement [ 13 ]. In addition, spending time with these persons is important to become familiar with an individual’s strengths and limitations [ 31 ].

Opting for naturally evolving involvement roles was mentioned as a barrier, as this may result in conflicting expectations and irrelevant tasks [ 37 ]. A clear role description and clarification of tasks is key to balancing potentially different expectations of the involved persons and researchers [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 38 ]. When designing a role for involvement in research, good practices dictate taking into account personal skills, preferences, development goals, and motivation for involvement [ 13 , 32 ]. This role should ideally be designed in collaboration with involved persons [ 13 , 32 ].

The perception of providing training to involved persons is ambivalent. Studies cited that training should not aim to transform them into “pseudo-scientist” [ 32 , 37 ] and that it raises the costs for involvement [ 28 ]. However, multiple scholars emphasize the importance of providing iterative training to facilitate meaningful involvement and development opportunities [ 13 , 23 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 ]. Training can empower involved persons to engage in the research process equally and with confidence, with the skills to fulfil their role [ 13 , 33 , 38 ]. However, the implementation of training may present a potential conflict with the fundamental principle of valuing experiential knowledge [ 37 ] and should avoid the objective of transforming co-researchers into 'expert' researchers [ 32 ]. Academic researchers should also be offered training on how to facilitate meaningful involvement [ 13 , 23 , 28 , 31 ].

Limited time and resources were mentioned as barriers to involvement that can delay the research process [ 13 , 33 , 36 , 39 ], restrict the involvement [ 28 ] and hinder the implementation of developed ideas [ 39 ]. Financial compensation for involvement is encouraged [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], as it acknowledges the contribution of involved persons [ 13 ]. Thus, meaningful involvement in research requires adequate funding and infrastructure to support the involvement activities [ 13 , 28 , 33 , 37 ].

Execution phase

The use of academic jargon and rapid paced discussions [ 13 , 37 ], power differentials, and the dominant discourse in biomedical research on what is considered “good science” can limit the impact of involvement [ 13 , 24 , 32 , 36 , 37 ]. Facilitating researchers should reflect on power differentials [ 35 ] and how decision-making power is shared [ 31 ]. Other facilitating factors are making a glossary of terms used and planning separate meetings for “technical topics” [ 37 ]. In addition, an emergent research design [ 35 ] or a design with flexible elements [ 28 ] can increase ownership in the research project and provide space for involvement to inform the research agenda [ 28 , 35 ]. This requires academic researchers to value experiential knowledge and to have an open mind towards the evolving research process [ 13 , 23 , 31 ].

Furthermore, managing the involvement process and ensuring equity in the collaboration [ 13 , 32 , 33 ], facilitating researchers must encourage involved persons to voice their perspectives. This means that they sometimes need to be convinced that they are experts of lived experience [ 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 ]. To enable involvement of PLWD, the use of visual and creative tools to prompt memories can be considered [ 24 , 30 , 33 , 34 ], as well as flexibility in relation to time frames and planning regular breaks to avoid too fast a pace for people who may tire easily [ 24 , 25 , 29 , 30 ].

Involvement can be experienced as stressful [ 13 , 32 , 38 ] and caring responsibilities may interfere [ 26 ]. Tailored [ 29 ] physical and emotional support should therefore be offered [ 13 , 23 , 38 ] without making assumptions about the meaning of burden [ 30 , 31 ]. Moreover, being the only PLWD involved in an advisory group was experienced as intimidating [ 25 ] and, ideally, a larger team of PLWD is involved to mitigate responsibilities [ 37 ]. PLWD having a focal point of contact [ 28 , 37 ] and involving nurses or other staff with experience working with PLWD and their carers [ 29 , 30 ] are mentioned as being beneficial. Some stress the importance of involving carers when engaging with PLWD in research [ 25 , 29 , 30 ].

To avoid an overload of information that is shared with the involved persons, tailoring information-sharing formats to individual preferences and abilities is essential to make communication effective [ 27 , 37 ].

Translation

Two studies indicated a need for more robust evaluation measures to assess the effect of involvement [ 28 , 33 ]. Reflection and evaluation of the involvement serves to improve the collaboration and to foster introspective learning [ 13 , 23 , 26 , 31 ]. The included studies evaluated involvement through the use of reflective diaries [ 13 ] or a template [ 38 ] with open-ended questions [ 33 ].

Two studies postulate that findings should benefit and be accessible to PLWD [ 23 , 31 ]. The use of creative tools not only enables involvement of PLWD, but can also increase accessibility of research findings and expand the present representation of PLWD [ 23 ].

The 18 included studies presented multiple methods for involvement in all three research phases. We found five types of involvement: advisory groups, (formal and informal) research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Only two studies described methods for involvement of LTC users in research. Involved persons were most often involved in consulting and advisory roles, but also as co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. Involved persons’ roles can evolve and change over time. Especially as involved persons grow into their role, and gain confidence and knowledge of the specific research project, a more active role with shared responsibilities can become part of the research project. In addition, multiple involvement roles can be used throughout the research depending on the research phase.

Compared to the five types of involvement that we identified, other literature reviews about involvement methods for LTC users and PLWD in research also described advisory groups [ 10 ] and workshops [ 5 , 11 ], and methods that were similar to research team meetings (drop-in sessions and meetings [ 11 ]). Methods for action research (action groups) and co-conducting research (interviews) were not included by these other review studies. In addition to our findings, these other reviews also described as involvement methods interviews and focus groups [ 5 , 10 ] surveys [ 10 ], reader consultation [ 11 ]. Those types of methods were excluded from our study, because our definition of involvement is more strict; collecting opinions is not involvement per se, but sometimes only study participation. Moreover, compared to these previous reviews we set a high standard for transparency about the participation methods and the level of detail at which they are described.

Engaging the target group in research, particularly when collaborating with PLWD, LTC users, and carers, involves navigating unforeseen challenges [ 40 ]. This requires academic researchers to carefully balance academic research goals and expectations, and the expectations, personal circumstances and development goals related to the involved person. The aim is to maximize involvement while being attentive to the individual’s needs and avoiding a deficit perspective. Effective communication should be established, promoting respect, equality, and regular feedback between all stakeholders, including individuals living with dementia and LTCF staff. Building a mutual trusting relationship between involved persons and academic researchers through social interaction and clear communication is key to overcome barriers and ensure meaningful involvement. Inclusivity and empowerment, along with fostering an environment where diverse voices are heard, are crucial for the success of involvement in research. Our results are in line with a recent study concerning the experiences of frail older persons with involvement in research, confirming the importance of avoiding stereotypic views of ageing and frailty, building a trusting relationship, and being sensitive to older persons’ preferences and needs [ 41 ].

Furthermore, our results show that training academic researchers and involved persons is essential to develop the skills to facilitate involvement and to fulfil their role with confidence, respectively. Whilst the need for training is acknowledged by others [ 41 , 42 ], there are legitimate objections to the idea of training involved persons, as the professionalization underpinning the concept of training is at odds with voicing a lay perspective [ 43 , 44 ]. Furthermore, it is argued that experiential knowledge is compromised when training is structured according to the dominant professional epistemology of objectivity [ 45 ]. Therefore, training of involved persons should not focus on what researchers think they ought to know, but on what they want to learn [ 41 ].

Academic culture was frequently mentioned as a barrier to meaningful involvement. This result resonates with the wider debate related to involvement in health research which is concerned about active or “authentic involvement” being replaced with the appropriation of the patient voice as an add-on to conventional research designs [ 12 , 46 ]. It is argued that such tokenistic involvement limits the involved persons’ ability to shape research outcomes [ 46 ]. To reduce tokenism requires a culture shift [ 13 ]. We believe that due to the strict definition of involvement and high transparency standard used in this review, tokenistic approaches were excluded. This may set an example for how to stimulate making this culture shift.

Furthermore, the importance of practical aspects such as funding and, by extension, the availability of time should not be underestimated. Adequate funding is necessary for compensation of involvement, but also to ensure that researchers have ample time to plan involvement activities and provide personalized support for PLWD, LTC residents and their carers. Funding bodies increasingly require involvement of the public to be part of research proposals. Yet, support in terms of financial compensation and time for the implementation of involvement in research is rarely part of funding grants [ 42 ]. In addition, whereas an emergent design could aid the impact of involvement, funders often require a pre-set research proposal in which individual components are already fixed [ 5 , 47 ]. This indicates that not only do academic researchers and culture need to change, academic systems also need to be modified in order to facilitate and nurture meaningful involvement [ 47 ].

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this review is the inclusion of over ten scientific databases, with a reach beyond the conventional biomedical science databases often consulted in systematic reviews. Besides, we believe that we have overcome the inconsistent use of terminology of involvement in research by including also other terms used, such as participation and engagement, in our search strategy. However, there was also inconsistency in length of publications and precision of the explanation of the process of involvement. E.g., involvement in the execution phase was often elaborated on, contributions to the research proposal and co-authoring research findings were only stated and not described. This presented challenges for data extraction and analysis, as it was not always possible to identify how the target group was involved. Involvement in these research phases is therefore not fully represented in this review.

The included studies in this review, the majority of which are of high quality, provide methods for involvement of PLWD and LTC users in research and they do not explicitly attend to the effectiveness or impact of the method for involvement used. Therefore, a limitation of this review is that it cannot make any statements regarding the effectiveness of the involvement methods included. Moreover, our target population was broad, although PLWD and LTC users are largely overlapping in their care needs and share important features, this may have led to heterogeneous results. In future research, it would be interesting to interpret potential differences between involvement of PLWD, LTC users, and their carers. However, as we expected, the amount of literature included in our analyses was too limited to do so. Furthermore, whereas the broad target group is a limitation it is also a strength of our review. Limiting our search to specifically persons living in LTC facilities would have provided limited methods for involvement of persons living with dementia. Our broad target groups enabled us to learn from research projects in which people living with early staged dementia are directly involved from which we can draw lessons on the involvement of people with more advanced stages of dementia and persons living with cognitive problems who live within LTC facilities.

Since January 2021 quite some research has been published about the importance of involvement in research. Although we had quickly screened for new methods, we realise that we may have missed some involvement methods in the past years. There will be a need for a search update in the future.

Implications for future research

Our review shows that a flexible and emergent design may help to increase involved persons' influence on and ownership in the research process. However, not all research objectives may be suitable for the implementation of an emergent design. Future research should therefore examine how aspects of a flexible emergent design can be integrated in, e.g., clinical research without compromising the validity of research outcomes.

Alzheimer Europe has called for the direct involvement of persons living with dementia in research [ 48 ]. In addition, Swarbrick et al. (this review) advise to involve persons regardless of their cognitive abilities [ 23 ]. These statements question the involvement of proxies, such as carers, professional caregivers and others involved in the care of PLWD. While PLWD and persons with other cognitive problems constitute a significant group within residential and nursing homes [ 7 ], none of the studies included in this review have provided methods to directly involve persons with more advanced stages of dementia. This raises the question if research methods should be adapted to allow those with more advanced stages of dementia to be involved themselves or if, concerning the progressive nature of the disease, it is more appropriate to involve proxies. And secondly who should these proxies be? Those that care for and live with persons with an advanced stage of dementia, or for example a person living with an early stage of dementia to represent the voices of persons with more advanced stages of dementia [ 31 ]?

Future research should adopt our example for stricter requirements for involvement and transparency about the involvement methods used. This will reduce tokenistic involvement and further promote the culture shift towards meaningful involvement. In addition, future research should assess the impact of the involvement methods that are described in this review. One of the first instruments that that may be used to do so in varying healthcare settings is the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [ 49 ]. Moreover, scholars in this review stress, and we agree with this, that future research is needed on the involvement of persons with more advanced stages of dementia to ensure their voices are not excluded from research [ 33 , 34 ].

This review provides an overview of the existing methods used to actively involve PLWD, LTC users, and carers in scientific research. Our findings show that their involvement is feasible throughout all research phases. We have identified five different methods for involvement, four different roles, and two models for co-research. Our results suggest that planning enough time for involving PLWD, LTC users, and carers in research, is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet their personal needs and preferences. In addition, researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons’ ownership in the research process.

Availability of data and materials

The full search strategy is provided in supplement 1 . The data extraction form can be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, long form version 2

• Long-term care

Persons living with dementia

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .

Staley K. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. 2009. Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Involve_Exploring_Impactfinal28.10.09.pdf . Accessed 17 Jan 2024

Ashcroft J, Wykes T, Taylor J, et al. Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research? J Ment Health. 2016;25(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2015.1101424 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Backhouse T, Kenkmann A, Lane K, et al. Older care-home residents as collaborators or advisors in research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2016;45(3):337–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv201 .

Bendien E, Groot B, Abma T. Circles of impacts within and beyond participatory action research with older people. Ageing Soc 2020:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20001336 .

Lepore MED, Meyer J, Igarashi A. How long-term care quality assurance measures address dementia in Australia, England, Japan, and the United States. Ageing Health Res 2021;1(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahr.2021.100013 .

Freedman VA, Spillman BC. Disability and care needs among older Americans. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):509–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12076 .

Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, et al. Patient engagement in research related to dementia: a scoping review. Dementia. 2018;17(8):944–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218789292 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, et al. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9 .

Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for involving older people in health research—a review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12):1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121476 .

Andersson N. Participatory research—A modernizing science for primary health care. J Gen Fam Med. 2018;19(5):154–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.187 .

Di Lorito C, Godfrey M, Dunlop M, et al. Adding to the knowledge on patient and public involvement: reflections from an experience of co-research with carers of people with dementia. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):691–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13049 .

Islam S, Small N. An annotated and critical glossary of the terminology of inclusion in healthcare and health research. Res Involve Engage. 2020;6(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00186-6 .

Rose D. Patient and public involvement in health research: Ethical imperative and/or radical challenge? J Health Psychol. 2014;19(1):149–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313500249 .

NIHR. Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, health and social care research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371#Involvement . Accessed 12 Jan 2023.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2018. https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf . Accessed 12 Jan 2023.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090 .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .

Saldana JM. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021:372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Swarbrick C, Doors O, et al. Developing the co-researcher involvement and engagement in dementia model (COINED): A co-operative inquiry. In: Keady J, Hydén L-C, Johnson A, et al., editors. Social research methods in dementia studies: Inclusion and innovation. New York, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. p. 8–19.

Clarke CL, Wilkinson H, Watson J, et al. A seat around the table: participatory data analysis with people living with dementia. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(9):1421–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318774768 .

Flavin T, Sinclair C. Reflections on involving people living with dementia in research in the Australian context. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(Suppl 2):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12596 .

Giebel C, Roe B, Hodgson A, et al. Effective public involvement in the HoST-D programme for dementia home care support: From proposal and design to methods of data collection (innovative practice). Dementia (London). 2019;18(7–8):3173–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216687698 .

Goeman DP, Corlis M, Swaffer K, et al. Partnering with people with dementia and their care partners, aged care service experts, policymakers and academics: a co-design process. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(Suppl 2):53–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12635 .

Gregory S, Bunnik EM, Callado AB, et al. Involving research participants in a pan-European research initiative: the EPAD participant panel experience. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00236-z .

Hanson E, Magnusson L, Arvidsson H, et al. Working together with persons with early stage dementia and their family members to design a user-friendly technology-based support service. Dementia. 2007;6(3):411–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301207081572 .

Hassan L, Swarbrick C, Sanders C, et al. Tea, talk and technology: patient and public involvement to improve connected health “wearables” research in dementia. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0063-1 .

Mann J, Hung L. Co-research with people living with dementia for change. Action Research. 2019;17(4):573–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750318787005 .

Poland F, Charlesworth G, Leung P, et al. Embedding patient and public involvement: managing tacit and explicit expectations. Health Expect. 2019;22(6):1231–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12952 .

Stevenson M, Taylor BJ. Involving individuals with dementia as co-researchers in analysis of findings from a qualitative study. Dementia (London). 2019;18(2):701–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217690904 .

Tanner D. Co-research with older people with dementia: experience and reflections. J Ment Health. 2012;21(3):296–306. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2011.651658 .

Baur V, Abma T. “The Taste Buddies”: participation and empowerment in a residential home for older people. Ageing Soc. 2012;32(6):1055–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X11000766 .

Beukema L, Valkenburg B. Demand-driven elderly care in the Netherlands. Action Research. 2007;5(2):161–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307077316 .

Brown LJE, Dickinson T, Smith S, et al. Openness, inclusion and transparency in the practice of public involvement in research: a reflective exercise to develop best practice recommendations. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12609 .

Froggatt K, Goodman C, Morbey H, et al. Public involvement in research within care homes: benefits and challenges in the APPROACH study. Health Expect. 2016;19(6):1336–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12431 .

Shura R, Siders RA, Dannefer D. Culture change in long-term care: participatory action research and the role of the resident. Gerontologist. 2011;51(2):212–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq099 .

Cook T. Participatory research: Its meaning and messiness. Beleidsonderzoek Online. 2020;3:1–21. https://doi.org/10.5553/BO/221335502021000003001 .

Haak M, Ivanoff S, Barenfeld E, et al. Research as an essentiality beyond one’s own competence: an interview study on frail older people’s view of research. Res Involv Engage. 2021;7(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00333-7 .

Chamberlain SA, Gruneir A, Keefe JM, et al. Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team. Res Involve Engage. 2021;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w .

Bélisle-Pipon J-C, Rouleau G, Birko S. Early-career researchers’ views on ethical dimensions of patient engagement in research. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0260-y .

Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who’s sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(3):181–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100150 .

De Graaff M, Stoopendaal A, Leistikow I. Transforming clients into experts-by-experience: a pilot in client participation in Dutch long-term elderly care homes inspectorate supervision. Health Policy. 2019;123(3):275–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.006 .

Cook T. Where Participatory Approaches Meet Pragmatism in Funded (Health) Research: The Challenge of Finding Meaningful Spaces. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2012;13(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1783 .

Paylor J, McKevitt C. The possibilities and limits of “co-producing” research. Front Sociol. 2019;4:23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00023 .

Gove D, Diaz-Ponce A, Georges J, et al. Alzheimer Europe’s position on involving people with dementia in research through PPI (patient and public involvement). Aging Ment Health. 2018;22(6):723–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1317334 .

Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, et al. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):817–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12378 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jan W. Schoones, information specialist Directorate of Research Policy (formerly: Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands), for helping with the search.

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands

Janneke M. Groothuijse, Lisa S. van Tol, C. C. M. (Toos) Hoeksel-van Leeuwen, Monique A. A. Caljouw & Wilco P. Achterberg

University Network for the Care Sector Zuid-Holland, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Johannes J. M. van Delden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept: HD, LT, MC, WA; design of study protocol: JG, LT, MC; data collection and extraction: JG, LT, MC, THL; data analysis and interpretation: all authors; writing, editing and final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique A. A. Caljouw .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interest.

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Groothuijse, J.M., van Tol, L.S., Leeuwen, C.C.M.(.Hv. et al. Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement. BMC Geriatr 24 , 324 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04877-7

Download citation

Received : 03 February 2023

Accepted : 05 March 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04877-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Involvement in research
• Older residents

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

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