types of literature review with example

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Figures in Research Paper – Examples and Guide

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

• Narrative or traditional literature reviews
• Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
• Scoping reviews
• Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

• The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

• The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).  

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009).  A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017).  How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice.  British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873 

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 11, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

• University of Wisconsin–Madison
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services
• Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services : Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

• Develop a Protocol
• Develop Your Research Question
• Select Databases
• Select Gray Literature Sources
• Write a Search Strategy
• Manage Your Search Process
• Register Your Protocol
• Citation Management
• Article Screening
• Risk of Bias Assessment
• Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Find Guidance by Discipline
• Manage Your Research Data
• Browse Evidence Portals by Discipline
• Automate the Process, Tools & Technologies
• Adapting Systematic Review Methods
• Additional Resources

Choosing a Literature Review Methodology

Growing interest in evidence-based practice has driven an increase in review methodologies. Your choice of review methodology (or literature review type) will be informed by the intent (purpose, function) of your research project and the time and resources of your team. 

• Decision Tree (What Type of Review is Right for You?) Developed by Cornell University Library staff, this "decision-tree" guides the user to a handful of review guides given time and intent.

Types of Evidence Synthesis*

Critical Review - Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model.

Mapping Review (Systematic Map) - Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.

Meta-Analysis - Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

Mixed Studies Review (Mixed Methods Review) - Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.

Narrative (Literature) Review - Broad, generic term - Refers to an examination and general synthesis of the research literature, often with a wide scope; completeness and comprehensiveness may vary. Does not follow an established protocol.

Overview - Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics.

Qualitative Systematic Review or Qualitative Evidence Synthesis - Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.

Rapid Review - Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.

Scoping Review or Evidence Map - Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research.

State-of-the-art Review - Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research.

Systematic Review - Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesize research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. (An emerging subset includes Living Reviews or Living Systematic Reviews - A [review or] systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available.)

Systematic Search and Review - Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis.’

Umbrella Review - Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

*Apart from some qualifying description for "Narrative (Literature) Review", these definitions are provided in Grant & Booth's "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."

Literature Review Types/Typologies, Taxonomies

Grant, M. J., and A. Booth. "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  26.2 (2009): 91-108.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x  Link

Munn, Zachary, et al. “Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology , vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 2018, p. 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. Link

Sutton, A., et al. "Meeting the Review Family: Exploring Review Types and Associated Information Retrieval Requirements."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  36.3 (2019): 202-22.  DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276  Link

• << Previous: Home
• Next: The Systematic Review Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 11:01 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Literature Reviews

• Types of reviews
• Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

• Meta-analysis
• Systematized

Definition:

"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).

Characteristics:

• Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects
• Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology
• May or may not include comprehensive searching, quality assessment or critical appraisal

Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review.  Sustainability ,  14 (15), 9653.  doi.org/10.3390/su14159653

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).

• Assessment of what is already known about an issue
• Similar to a systematic review but within a time-constrained setting
• Typically employs methodological shortcuts, increasing risk of introducing bias, includes basic level of quality assessment
• Best suited for issues needing quick decisions and solutions (i.e., policy recommendations)

Learn more about the method:

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.  Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol .

Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence.  Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?".  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.  Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence.  Environment international ,  147 , 105954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 . 

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108.  https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).

• Main purpose is to map out and categorize existing literature, identify gaps in literature—great for informing policy-making
• Search comprehensiveness determined by time/scope constraints, could take longer than a systematic review
• No formal quality assessment or critical appraisal

Learn more about the methods :

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.  International Journal of Social Research Methodology ,  8 (1), 19-32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Example : 

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review.  Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.

• Compiles evidence from multiple reviews into one document
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review

Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence.  The Korean Journal of Pain ,  35 (2), 127–128.  https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth ,  18 (2), 704.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704

A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).

• Statistical technique for combining results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect of results
• Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching
• Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion criteria
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations.  Environmental Science & Technology ,  38 (4), 945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).

• Aims to compile and synthesize all known knowledge on a given topic
• Adheres to strict guidelines, protocols, and frameworks
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  12 (4), 4354–4379.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354

"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a  structured review  (Huelin et al., 2015).

• Typically conducted by postgraduate or graduate students
• Often assigned by instructors to students who don't have the resources to conduct a full systematic review

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  15 (5), 897.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/

• Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
• LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: 1. Define your research question >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

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

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

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

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

But wait – is this the right time?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

1: The Introduction Section

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

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

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

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

2: The Body Section

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

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

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

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3: Methodological

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

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

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

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

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

3: The Conclusion Section

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

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

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

Example: Thematically Structured Review

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

28 Comments

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

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

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

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

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

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, very helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Different Types of Literature Review: Which One Fits Your Research?

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

You might not have heard that there are multiple kinds of literature review. However, with the progress in your academic career you will learn these classifications and may need to use different types of them. However, there is nothing to worry if you aren’t aware of them now, as here we are going to discuss this topic in detail.

There are approximately 14 types of literature review on the basis of their specific objectives, methodologies, and the way they approach and analyse existing literature in academic research. Of those 14, there are 4 major types. But before we delve into the details of each one of them and how they are useful in academics, let’s first understand the basics of literature review.

What is Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical and systematic summary and evaluation of existing research. It is an essential component of academic and research work, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field.

In easy words, a literature review is like making a big, organised summary of all the important research and smart books or articles about a particular topic or question. It’s something scholars and researchers do, and it helps everyone see what we already know about that topic. It’s kind of like taking a snapshot of what we understand right now in a certain field.

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

• Provides a comprehensive understanding of existing research on a topic.
• Identifies gaps, trends, and inconsistencies in the literature.
• Contextualise your own research within the broader academic discourse.
• Supports the development of theoretical frameworks or research hypotheses.

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they’re like the “go-to” methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Think of them as the classic tools in the researcher’s toolbox. They’ve earned their reputation because they have a unique style for literature review introduction , clear steps and specific qualities that make them super handy for different research needs.

1. Narrative Review

Narrative reviews present a well-structured narrative that reads like a cohesive story, providing a comprehensive overview of a specific topic. These reviews often incorporate historical context and offer a broad understanding of the subject matter, making them valuable for researchers looking to establish a foundational understanding of their area of interest. They are particularly useful when a historical perspective or a broad context is necessary to comprehend the current state of knowledge in a field.

2. Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are renowned for their methodological rigour. They involve a meticulously structured process that includes the systematic selection of relevant studies, comprehensive data extraction, and a critical synthesis of their findings. This systematic approach is designed to minimise bias and subjectivity, making systematic reviews highly reliable and objective. They are considered the gold standard for evidence-based research as they provide a clear and rigorous assessment of the available evidence on a specific research question.

3. Meta Analysis

Meta analysis is a powerful method for researchers who prefer a quantitative and statistical perspective. It involves the statistical synthesis of data from various studies, allowing researchers to draw more precise and generalisable conclusions by combining data from multiple sources. Meta analyses are especially valuable when the aim is to quantitatively measure the effect size or impact of a particular intervention, treatment, or phenomenon.

4. Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are invaluable tools, especially for researchers in the early stages of exploring a topic. These reviews aim to map the existing literature, identifying gaps and helping clarify research questions. Scoping reviews provide a panoramic view of the available research, which is particularly useful when researchers are embarking on exploratory studies or trying to understand the breadth and depth of a subject before conducting more focused research.

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

There are some more approaches to conduct literature review. Let’s explore these classifications quickly.

5. Critical Review

Critical reviews provide an in-depth evaluation of existing literature, scrutinising sources for their strengths, weaknesses, and relevance. They offer a critical perspective, often highlighting gaps in the research and areas for further investigation.

6. Theoretical Review

Theoretical reviews are centred around exploring and analysing the theoretical frameworks, concepts, and models present in the literature. They aim to contribute to the development and refinement of theoretical perspectives within a specific field.

7. Integrative Review

Integrative reviews synthesise a diverse range of studies, drawing connections between various research findings to create a comprehensive understanding of a topic. These reviews often bridge gaps between different perspectives and provide a holistic overview.

8. Historical Review

Historical reviews focus on the evolution of a topic over time, tracing its development through past research, events, and scholarly contributions. They offer valuable context for understanding the current state of research.

9. Methodological Review

Among the different kinds of literature reviews, methodological reviews delve into the research methods and methodologies employed in existing studies. Researchers assess these approaches for their effectiveness, validity, and relevance to the research question at hand.

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

Cross-disciplinary reviews explore a topic from multiple academic disciplines, emphasising the diversity of perspectives and insights that each discipline brings. They are particularly useful for interdisciplinary research projects and uncovering connections between seemingly unrelated fields.

11. Descriptive Review

Descriptive reviews provide an organised summary of existing literature without extensive analysis. They offer a straightforward overview of key findings, research methods, and themes present in the reviewed studies.

12. Rapid Review

Rapid reviews expedite the literature review process, focusing on summarising relevant studies quickly. They are often used for time-sensitive projects where efficiency is a priority, without sacrificing quality.

13. Conceptual Review

Conceptual reviews concentrate on clarifying and developing theoretical concepts within a specific field. They address ambiguities or inconsistencies in existing theories, aiming to refine and expand conceptual frameworks.

14. Library Research

Library research reviews rely primarily on library and archival resources to gather and synthesise information. They are often employed in historical or archive-based research projects, utilising library collections and historical documents for in-depth analysis.

Each type of literature review serves distinct purposes and comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, allowing researchers to choose the one that best suits their research objectives and questions.

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

In order to conduct your research in the right manner, it is important that you choose the correct type of review for your literature. Here are 8 amazing tips we have sorted for you in regard to literature review help so that you can select the best-suited type for your research.

• Clarify Your Research Goals: Begin by defining your research objectives and what you aim to achieve with the literature review. Are you looking to summarise existing knowledge, identify gaps, or analyse specific data?
• Understand Different Review Types: Familiarise yourself with different kinds of literature reviews, including systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and integrative reviews. Each serves a different purpose.
• Consider Available Resources: Assess the resources at your disposal, including time, access to databases, and the volume of literature on your topic. Some review types may be more resource-intensive than others.
• Alignment with Research Question: Ensure that the chosen review type aligns with your research question or hypothesis. Some types are better suited for answering specific research questions than others.
• Scope and Depth: Determine the scope and depth of your review. For a broad overview, a narrative review might be suitable, while a systematic review is ideal for an in-depth analysis.
• Consult with Advisors: Seek guidance from your academic advisors or mentors. They can provide valuable insights into which review type best fits your research goals and resources.
• Consider Research Field Standards: Different academic fields have established standards and preferences for different forms of literature review. Familiarise yourself with what is common and accepted in your field.
• Pilot Review: Consider conducting a small-scale pilot review of the literature to test the feasibility and suitability of your chosen review type before committing to a larger project.

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

Now, since you have learned all the literature review types and have understood which one to prefer, here are some bonus tips for you to structure a literature review of a dissertation .

• Clearly Define Your Research Question: Start with a well-defined and focused research question to guide your literature review.
• Thorough Search Strategy: Develop a comprehensive search strategy to ensure you capture all relevant literature.
• Critical Evaluation: Assess the quality and credibility of the sources you include in your review.
• Synthesise and Organise: Summarise the key findings and organise the literature into themes or categories.
• Maintain a Systematic Approach: If conducting a systematic review, adhere to a predefined methodology and reporting guidelines.
• Engage in Continuous Review: Regularly update your literature review to incorporate new research and maintain relevance.

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

Effective literature reviews demand a range of tools and resources to streamline the process.

• Reference management software like EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley helps organise, store, and cite sources, saving time and ensuring accuracy.
• Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly articles, with advanced search and citation tracking features.
• Research guides from universities and libraries offer tips and templates for structuring reviews.
• Research networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu facilitate collaboration and access to publications. Literature review templates and research workshops provide additional support.

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

• Unclear research objectives result in unfocused reviews, so start with well-defined questions.
• Biased source selection can compromise objectivity, so include diverse perspectives.
• Never miss on referencing; proper citation and referencing are essential for academic integrity.
• Don’t overlook older literature, which provides foundational insights.
• Be mindful of scope creep, where the review drifts from the research question; stay disciplined to maintain focus and relevance.

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

As we conclude this classification of fourteen distinct approaches to conduct literature reviews, it’s clear that the world of research offers a multitude of avenues for understanding, analysing, and contributing to existing knowledge.

Whether you’re a seasoned scholar or a student beginning your academic journey, the choice of review type should align with your research objectives and the nature of your topic. The versatility of these approaches empowers you to tailor your review to the demands of your project.

Remember, your research endeavours have the potential to shape the future of knowledge, so choose wisely and dive into the world of literature reviews with confidence and purpose. Happy reviewing!

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages

Types of Literature Reviews

• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers.

• First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish.
• Second, are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies.
• Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

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

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

• << Previous: Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Next: Departmental Differences >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

Capstone and PICO Project Toolkit

• Starting a Project: Overview
• Developing a Research Question
• Selecting Databases
• Expanding a Search
• Refining/Narrowing a Search
• Saving Searches
• Critical Appraisal & Levels of Evidence
• Citing & Managing References
• Database Tutorials
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Finding Full Text
• Term Glossary

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Database Tutorials
• Next: Finding Full Text >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 11:45 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/pico

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

A literature review of genetics and epigenetics of HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma: translational impact

Affiliations.

• 1 Storr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
• 2 Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
• 3 State Key Laboratory of Liver Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
• 4 Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei.
• 5 Hepatitis Research Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei.
• 6 Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei.
• 7 Department of Liver Surgery, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, PUMC & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
• 8 Organ Transplant Center of Excellence, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
• 9 Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
• PMID: 39175720
• PMCID: PMC11336528
• DOI: 10.21037/hbsn-23-562

Background and objective: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a significant global health burden and ranks as the fifth most prevalent cancer on a global scale. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains one of the major risk factors for HCC development. HCC is a heterogeneous disease, and the development of HCC caused by HCV is intricate and involves various factors, including genetic susceptibility, viral factors, immune response due to chronic inflammation, alcohol abuse, and metabolic dysfunction associated with fatty liver disease. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and updated review of research on the genetics and epigenetic mechanisms implicated in developing HCC associated with HCV infection. We also discuss the potential translational implications, including novel biomarkers and drugs for treatment.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in June 2023 in PubMed and Embase databases.

Key content and findings: Recent findings indicate that a variety of genetic and epigenetic processes are involved in the pathogenesis and continue to exist even after the complete elimination of HCV. The deregulation of the epigenome has been identified as a significant factor in the deletrious effects of liver disease, especially during the initial stages when genetic alterations are uncommon. The enduring "epigenetic memory" of gene expression is believed to be regulated by epigenetic mechanisms, indicating that alterations caused by HCV infection continue to exist and are linked to the risk of development of liver cancer even after successful treatment. Systems biology analytical methods will be required to delineate the magnitude and significance of both genetic and epigenomic alterations in tumor evolution.

Conclusions: By facilitating a more profound understanding of these aspects, this will ultimately foster the advancement of novel therapies and ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

Keywords: Epigenetics; genetics; hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCV-related HCC); translational implications.

2024 Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://hbsn.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/hbsn-23-562/coif). Y.M. serves as the Editor-in-Chief of HepatoBiliary Surgery and Nutrition. M.E. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of HepatoBiliary Surgery and Nutrition. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The pathogenesis of HCC. The…

The pathogenesis of HCC. The formation and progression of HCC after the eradication…

• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. 10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
• El‐Serag HB. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Arias IM, Alter HJ, Boyer JL, et al. editors. The liver: Biology and pathobiology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2020:758-772.
• Dragani TA. Risk of HCC: genetic heterogeneity and complex genetics. J Hepatol 2010;52:252-7. 10.1016/j.jhep.2009.11.015 - DOI - PubMed
• Progress report on access to hepatitis C treatment: focus on overcoming barriers in low-and middle-income countries. World Health Organization; 2018.
• Organization WH. WHO urges countries to invest in eliminating hepatitis. 2019. In:2019.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• AME Publishing Company

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2024

War and peace in public health education and training: a scoping review

• Lisa Wandschneider 1 , 2 ,
• Anna Nowak 1 , 2 ,
• Marta Miller 4 ,
• Anina Grün 1 , 2 ,
• Yudit Namer 2 , 5 ,
• Tomasz Bochenek 6 ,
• Lukasz Balwicki 7 ,
• Oliver Razum 1 , 2 &
• Colette Cunningham 3  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2303 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

58 Accesses

Metrics details

Armed conflict and war are public health disasters. Public health action has a crucial role in conflict-related emergencies and rehabilitation but also in war prevention and peace promotion. Translating this into public health training and competencies has just started to emerge, especially in Europe.

We conducted a Scoping Review to map and identify the role of public health education and training of public health workforce relating to the prevention of war and promoting peace, as reflected in the scientific literature. We searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections as well as the reference list of included material in English, German and Polish. Focusing initially on the European region, we later expanded the search outside of Europe.

We included 7 publications from opinion pieces to an empirical assessment of curricula and training. The educational programs were predominantly short-term and extra-curricular in postgraduate courses addressing both public health professionals in conflict-affected countries as well as countries not directly affected by war. Publications focused on public health action in times of war, without specifying the context and type of war or armed conflict. Competencies taught focused on emergency response and multi-disciplinary collaboration during emergencies, frequently drawing on experience and examples from natural disaster and disease outbreak management.

Conclusions

The scientific discourse on competences in public health education for times of war and for the promotion of peace, predominately focuses on immediate emergency response actions. The prevention of war and the promotion of peace are missing foci, that need to feature more prominently in public health training. Public Health Education and training should ensure that war prevention and peace promotion, as well as public health action in times of war, are included in their competencies for public health professionals.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

War has profound adverse effects on public health [ 1 ].

War and armed conflict have far-reaching consequences, affecting the lives of millions of people, resulting in the loss of human life, but also in the disruption of social infrastructure such as safe food and water supplies, housing, and access to health services, leading to increased mortality and morbidity. War-torn countries and populations experience an increase in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost [ 2 ]. In addition, mass displacement, which disproportionately affects women, children, the elderly and vulnerable groups, exposes people to precarious living conditions and arduous travel, affecting their health and well-being. War and armed conflict have profound long-term physical and psychological consequences for those involved. They destroy communities and the fabric of society is often irreversibly undermined. This affects public health as well as legalizing and promoting violence as a way of solving problems [ 2 ]. In this paper, war and armed conflict is defined as ‘hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state [ 3 ]. The International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) casebook differentiates between an international armed conflict which “occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force against another State, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation” and a non-international armed conflict in which one or more non-State armed groups are involved (the vast majority of conflicts since 1945) [ 4 ]. Other authors differentiate wars by causes or intentions, for example imperial wars [ 5 ] or wars of annexation, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The reason is that preventive measures may be quite different. Much of the literature such as Levy et al. [ 1 , 6 ] covers armed conflict but not wars of annexation [ 2 , 7 ]. Today’s wars are often hybrid, meaning they are being fought by military as well as by destabilizing, non-military means [ 8 ]. Debates on preventing wars of annexation need to cover the role of the military, and the way in which public health relates to it, but also political determinants. For reasons of readability, however, the term ‘war’ will be used consistently throughout the text to include armed conflict and wars of annexation, as well as hybrid elements of warfare.

Conceptualizing war in public health is a relatively recent development, while international relations and defense studies have a longstanding tradition of analyzing and theorizing war and peace (e.g. [ 5 , 9 , 10 ]). Public health approaches focusing primarily on emergency response and relief care [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. However, there is a growing shift in public health to emphasize its preventive role in peacetime, with the aim of minimizing the health impact of war on affected populations [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. At the same time, one of public health’s major aims – reducing and dismantling (health) inequities — is also a crucial determinant for preventing armed conflict [ 17 , 18 , 19 ] presenting another valuable angle for public health’s role in peacebuilding and preventing war. This shift is consistent with modern public health care, given the emergence of complex global public health crises such as climate change, biodiversity loss, migration, cybersecurity, inequities, and pandemics such as COVID-19 [ 20 ]. We are looking at syndemics, whereby a set of linked health problems interact synergistically and contribute to the excess burden of disease in a population [ 21 ]. The preventative role provides an opportunity to develop a comprehensive public health framework that can effectively address the needs during war, its prevention, and post-conflict periods. Hagopian and Jabbour (2022) [ 22 ] proposed such a framework, using the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Prevention (PSTP) Framework to address global inequalities and injustices that may contribute to war. It includes primary prevention, which focuses on addressing the root causes and social determinants of war; secondary prevention, which aims to reduce harm and damage during conflict; and tertiary prevention, which involves rebuilding health systems in post-conflict settings [ 22 ]. Wars of annexation have more to do with (re-)building imperia, rather than with inequalities and injustices. Nonetheless, there is no agreed-upon theory on the cause(s) of war [ 10 ].

While the role of public health in emergencies is increasingly well explored in public health research and in interdisciplinary collaboration, the translation of this knowledge into public health training and competencies is only just beginning to emerge, particularly in Europe. The literature is increasingly recommending that public health education and training programs should include an understanding of the health impacts of war and conflict, including the epidemiology of war-related injuries and illnesses, environmental impacts of war, and mental health effects of war on soldiers and civilians [ 2 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Additionally, public health professionals should be trained to respond to the health impacts of war, including strategies for preventing and treating war-related injuries and illnesses, as well as promoting peace and non-violent conflict resolution [ 2 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. ,.

In light of contemporary conflicts and geopolitical tensions, such as the war in Ukraine, as well as those in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Israel and Gaza, and other regions, training on effective and systematic public health practice to support affected populations is needed. The role of public health in both the prevention of war and the promotion of peace work is increasingly recognized and calls for its inclusion in public health education, and in the training of public health professionals [ 7 , 25 , 26 ]. Considering the present circumstances, there is a need for public health professionals to develop a skill set that enables them to address the challenges of war, prevention, as well as peacebuilding, so that they can confidently navigate an increasingly multi-disciplinary role and take an active place in the dialogue on the prevention of war and its consequences. We conducted a Scoping Review of the scientific literature in public health to map available evidence and discourse on war. We covered public health perspectives on war prevention, reaction to war, rehabilitation, and peace promotion within public health education and training. More specifically we aimed to answer the following research questions:

How is public health education addressing competencies related to war and peacebuilding? Are there existing examples of teaching and can we build on them for future training?

What are the gaps in public health education on war and how can we address them?

Are there existent frameworks which can be used or adapted to develop public health education programs focused on war, war prevention, and peace promotion?

The research team, representing expertise from schools of public health across Europe, developed the search strategy with the help of the Population, Comparison and Context (PCC) Framework [ 27 ]. We opted for a Scoping Review methodology, since it allows for ‘a preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature’ as well as ‘identify the nature and extent of research evidence’ [ 28 , 29 ]. It enabled us to map a diverse range of evidence e.g., implementation research on training programs as well as commentaries and opinion pieces, as indicators of an on-going discourse within the public health community. War and peacebuilding in public health education represent an under-researched area, therefore our Scoping Review allowed for the capture and extent, as well as the type of available evidence. Our methodology was developed using the PRISMA-ScR Checklist to comply with reporting and methodological standards (supplementary material 1) [ 30 ]. A review protocol was not published, but the authors used an internal methods protocol which has been updated throughout the process (Supplementary material 3).

Search strategy

We searched in academic databases PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections (using keywords and MeSH terms) to explore the scientific discourse on war and peacebuilding in public health education. Exploring grey literature, such as the extent of material at the level of Schools of Public Health exceeded the scope of this review and requires additional data collection tools. As related fields like disaster management and preparedness in public health are well represented within the scientific discourse, limiting this first mapping to scientific databases only, allows for a direct comparison and therefore seemed reasonable.

In our review, we defined the population as the body of interest, i.e., education and teaching body. Our search terms were chosen to identify literature that focused on public health education and training on war, war prevention and peace promotion. This method allowed the authors to capture examples of a broad range of education programs and training, both from individual courses to curricula. The concept element represents the thematic focus on war and peacebuilding. We aimed to integrate different stages of war e.g., armed conflict, active war and peacebuilding. In addition, we linked these search terms with closely-related fields, such as disaster management and preparedness, especially as these are competencies that are frequently linked to the context of war [ 31 ]. These terms have been informed by conflict-related health research as well as conceptual models systematizing the impact of war and peace promotion on public health [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]. For the context, being the third and last element of the PCC Framework, we used public health as the discipline and added global health since this is a field where the topic of war is frequently documented and addressed.

An experienced librarian supported the development of the search strategy (Table  1 , search protocols for all databases can be found in supplementary material 2). We conducted the searches on 8th September 2022 and extracted the records into the reference manager Zotero. In addition to the search in scientific databases, we checked the reference lists of included sources for further records that could warrant inclusion.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

In our review, we only included sources that had a primary interest in war and peacebuilding in the public health education context. This included publications that identified curricula, workshops, competencies, skills-sets and capacity-building trainings. For the war and peacebuilding element, this required an explicit definition of war and/or peacebuilding as the field of action or interest. We included academic literature, ranging from peer-reviewed articles to commentaries and editorials to capture a broad spectrum of the scientific discourse. We did not exclude any publication based on study design or period of the study.

We excluded sources that mentioned war or peacebuilding but did not elaborate further on how the courses addressed the specific needs or circumstances. Also, any material that solely addressed terrorist attacks was considered ineligible despite representing a potential weapon or strategy of war. Terrorist attacks were considered ineligible because they pertained to one, timely limited event that usually did not destroy the infrastructure of a complete region or country. Other competencies and frameworks for public health professionals is therefore warranted. The scoping review languages of the potential sources was limited to English, German, Polish.

For the screening process, we conducted a pilot with a random sample of 5% of the total records. This ensured inter-rater reliability between the reviewers by detecting inconsistencies and allowed us to adapt the eligibility criteria accordingly. Then, the reviewers (LW, MM, CC) started with the title and abstract screening. For the full texts, the reviewers changed (LW, MM, AG, AN), so we again conducted a pilot of a random 5% sample of the records identified in the abstract and title screening. Disagreements on the eligibility of full texts were discussed with all reviewers (LW, MM, AG, AN, CC) and resolved through discussion.

Data charting and analysis

The data charting and extraction focused on the context of war and the education/teaching element of the material, rather than the study details. The data charting table includes basic study characteristics, information on the context of war and peacebuilding as well as the teaching intervention ( Table  2 ). The standardized form guided the data charting process and was also tested in another pilot round between the reviewers. LW, MM, AG and AN extracted the data and modified the charting form in an iterative process, which was then discussed with the core reviewer team LW, MM, AG, AN and CC.

The data charting form also guided the descriptive and narrative synthesis of the findings. To structure the narrative analysis, we categorized the findings by the phase of war differentiating between a) preparedness and prevention, b) ongoing conflict and emergency, as well as c) recovery and rehabilitation based on Hagopian and Jabbour’s framework [ 22 ].

The initial literature search resulted in a total of 4922 citations (Fig.  1 ). After removing duplicates, a total of 2913 articles were screened. In the subsequent stages of this process, a total of 272 full‐text reports were assessed for eligibility, of which 264 studies were excluded because the focus was not on war or peacebuilding, or not on public health education/training.

Flowchart on the process identifying studies. This Study Flow Chart details the flow of information throughout the distinct phases of the review: identification, screening and included studies for final review

A total of seven articles reported on existing education/training or recommendation for training fulfilling the inclusion criteria (Fig.  1 ) [ 20 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. We classified the study design of the 7 articles into three groups: 4 were reports [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 ]; two were commentaries [ 20 , 37 ]; and one was an empirical qualitative study [ 35 ].

Study characteristics

The 7 articles were published between 1998 and 2019, with most of them produced in the Global North, including the US ( n  = 3) [ 20 , 32 , 35 ], Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina ( n  = 1) [ 33 ] and Sweden ( n  = 1) [ 34 ]. Only one was conducted in the Global South, the empirical study from South Sudan [ 37 ]. The included publications take different phases of war into account, some take on several within one study: 4 publications reported on early warning/prevention and preparedness [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]; 4 publications on conflict situations [ 20 , 33 , 35 , 37 ]; 3 on emergency [ 20 , 32 , 37 ]; and one study on recovery / rehabilitation [ 35 ]. Four publications related to specific armed conflicts and time periods; (Balkan (1994–2001) [ 32 ], Sweden (time period not specified) [ 34 ], South Sudan (2013) [ 37 ], and after the First World War (1920–1939) [ 36 ]. Three studies did not specify the geographical region or period of the study. The characteristics of each study are shown in Table  3 , depicting the type of publication, type of war, period, geographic setting, and phase of military operations. Table 3 provides an overview of the teaching interventions recommended or described by the included studies.

Prevention and Preparedness

Four ( n  = 4) publications reported or commented on early warning, prevention and preparedness for war or war-like situations on a professional level. McDonnell et al. recommend that applied epidemiologists should be prepared for war by acquiring knowledge on international law, human rights, and complex interventions by working on specific case studies during training to be able to conduct assessments of the conflict setting and to communicate health-related interventions effectively with stakeholders and the local population [ 35 ]. Joshi strengthens this approach to take into account the psychological burden of mental health professionals working with war-affected children. He recommends analyzing the situation properly, gaining knowledge about the region, culture, and people, but also reflecting on one’s own limitations and resources [ 33 ]. Both commentaries point to the importance of (interdisciplinary) collaboration and training [ 33 , 35 ].

Kulling & Holst and McGann have shown what a training module could look like. While Kulling & Holst refer to the Swedish context, McGann describes in a historical analysis what the training of public health nurses looked like after the First World War [ 34 , 36 ]. On a national level, according to Kulling & Holst different topics should be addressed in regional and local courses for health professionals, such as disaster medicine, management of the healthcare system in a disaster/crisis, command and control at an accident site, chemical accidents, decontamination methods, radiation accidents, microbiological preparedness / bioterrorism, psychiatric / psycho-social support and planning preparedness for chemical, biological, or nuclear/radiological (C B N R) events on a national level [ 34 ]. McGann describes that the training of public health nurses in the 1920s consisted of both a theoretical and a practical part [ 36 ]. In the theoretical part there are already overlaps with the modules recommended by Kulling & Holst [ 34 ]. McGann shows that lectures were given on public health nursing, hygiene, bacteriology, psychology, social conditions, and social administration [ 36 ]. The practical part consisted of work placements in nursing-related fields, such as child welfare centers, TB dispensaries or in a district nursing association [ 36 ].

Conflict and emergency

Burkle et al. and McDonnell et al. refer to the importance of combining medical skills and knowledge in emergency and crisis situations [ 20 , 35 ]. Both reports discuss advanced courses for the development of specific skills for work in humanitarian settings. According to the authors, knowledge of legal frameworks, communication skills, documentation of human rights violations, and the design and management of needs-based health services are necessary skills for public health professionals, with McDonnell et al. also emphasizing competence in qualitative and quantiative data [ 20 , 35 ]. Burkle et al. recommend developing an all-encompassing international program which should be continously evaluated and adapted according to emergency sitations [ 20 ]. Joshi adds the importance of compentency in interdisciplinary cooperation and training of local populations [ 33 ].

Evans et al. and Rathner & Katona describe specific training programs in more detail [ 32 , 37 ]. While Evans et al. describe a program for graduated professionals and mid-careers public health leaders [ 32 ], Ratner & Katona’s training program focuses not only on public health professionals but also on the general public [ 37 ]. Both programs consist of lectures and hands-on-activities or practical work. Evans et al. describe a graduate program based at the Center for Humanitarian Emergencies at Emory University in Atlanta, US. The program covers topics on emergency preparedness, logistics, mental health, needs assessment, nutrition, and risk communication through lectures and group discussions, followed by a field practica at in-country host institutions. The field practica cover areas such as emergency management or global health security [ 32 ]. Ratner & Katona’s program is set in South Sudan and involves first aid courses, providing participants with the skills and knowledge to care for themselves and others in times of medical emergencies. The training brings together people from different tribes or community groups and focuses on specific medical needs. Supported by the local community and local leaders, the training leads to intergroup communication, stigma reduction, and health-related collaboration between different population groups. It not only provided essential healthcare skills, but also served as a platform for peacebuilding and community-building [ 37 ].

Recovery, rehabilitation and peacebuilding

All authors understand their programs as preparation for war-like situations but only two focus specifically on peacebuilding [ 35 , 37 ]. Ratner & Katona’s teaching activity in South Sudan lead to peacebuilding, communication, and interaction between different groups in the local communities [ 37 ]. McDonald et al. emphasize conflict assessment for peacebuilding, using quantitative and qualitative methods and effective communication skills for policy changes and interdisciplinary and interinstitutional cooperation. According to the authors, knowledge about predictors of violent conflict is necessary [ 35 ]. None of the studies in our review pertain to recovery or rehabilitation-related competencies or training programs.

We identified 7 publications dealing with education and/or training for public health professionals that related to war and peacebuilding [ 20 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Most of the publications covered public health training from prevention and preparedness, conflict and emergency to recovery, rehabilitation and peacebuilding. Literature is scarce regarding public health education in the context of war, armed conflict and peace promotion. We found a broad range of different manuscripts including commentaries and opinion pieces on different types of war and armed conflict, but only 7 publications met the review’s inclusion criteria. We did not identify research studies comparing different teaching methods, training modules or evaluating programs. However, there is a growing awareness of the topic and not least since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (e.g. [ 19 , 38 , 39 , 40 ].). Nevertheless, more in-depth research needs to be done in this area.

The included publications are heterogeneous in terms of population, time, and war phases. Most of the programs described in the publications are aimed at public health professionals. Three studies ( n  = 3) focused on specific professional groups (e.g. psychologists, surgeons, nurses) [ 20 , 33 , 36 ]. Only Evans et al. targeted undergraduate and postgraduate students [ 32 ]. Just one publication included the local population in their education program and, in contrast to the other publications the context of the education program was within an emergency situation whereby there was an acute need for action due to the war-like situation in South Sudan [ 37 ]. Two studies described the educational program in more detail: While Kulling & Holst presented a current program in Sweden [ 34 ], McGann took a historical perspective and described the education of public health nurses between the First and Second World War [ 36 ]. Both studies pointed to similar teaching content for preparedness of professionals. Two other studies addressed general principals such as knowledge on human rights and complex interventions or self-reflection [ 33 , 35 ]. None of these publications used a conceptual educational framework.

We note from our scoping review that teaching war in public health education programs or in the training of public health professionals is predominately short-term and extra-curricular in post-graduate courses. A better understanding is needed of the intersections between war and health and of the indispensable role public health practitioners, academics and advocates could play particularly given the increasing significance of war as a determinant affecting population health [ 31 ].

The immediate emergency response in times of war was the main area of action in and for public health education. Some of the studies drew from or were also closely entangled with emergency management and/or disaster management (without any specific reference to war or peacebuilding). This finding is not surprising, given the relevance of this much more advanced and established field of public health practice. Emergency response and management, including infectious disease outbreaks and/or disasters especially natural disasters, are widely included in international standards and recommendations. For example, US [ 41 ] for public health education [ 42 ]. These topics are also frequently and systematically implemented in dedicated public health degrees [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. These competencies play a major role for public response in the context of war, e.g. for first response, multidisciplinary coordination and crisis situation [ 44 ]. However, we also found that emergency management and public health education on war were often entangled, which led to a high number of full-text screenings. Few of the studies and commentaries explicitly differentiated between natural disasters or outbreaks and war/armed conflicts; yet wars require additional skillsets and competencies. For example, conflicts frequently result in waves of trauma cases and public health hazards depending on conflict intensity. Also, infrastructure can be repeatedly destroyed or supplies to rebuild cannot reach communities in need – again depending on conflict activities. Accordingly, we encourage studies and commentaries on public health practice and analysis to more explicitly differentiate between natural disasters and armed conflicts [ 6 ].

Highlighting the different disciplines involved as well as the range of competencies required in different phases of war and peacebuilding, our review reiterates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration for developing and implementing public health education on war and peacebuilding. Building on this evidence, the growing conceptual understanding [ 6 , 14 , 16 , 22 ] and existing content-analyses of war-related public health education [ 20 , 31 ] will help to systematically advance public health training as well as the scientific discourse on this topic to support evidence-based decision-making for curriculum adaptations, teaching methods as well as adaptation for peacebuilding and in times of war.

Peacebuilding and war prevention were less discussed in the publications included in this review compared to other phases of war. Whoerle et al. suggest that health education can serve as a potential platform for integrating peace education into school curricula. The integration of health and peace involves four key approaches that could be translated into competencies: adopting a socio-ecological perspective; employing complexity thinking and problem mapping, recognizing the continuum of resilience and trauma, and considering the community as a site for practical implementation, calling for interdisciplinary cooperation [ 16 ]. Barry S. Levy, one of the long-standing experts in this field, proposes that citizens should confront the powerful in their country [ 6 ]. This is important advice in democratic societies, and there are precedents of successful protest and civic disobedience such as Daniel Ellsberg’s activism against the Vietnam war, which gave a boost to the US anti-war movement [ 47 ]. We reiterate this call and encourage to focus in on the competencies in public health required to specifically include peace promotion and war prevention in addition to the emergency war response. This is particularly important in an ‘era of geopolitical uncertainty’ [ 48 ] where peace and war play a dominant role and should be reflected as determinants of health and accordingly systematically addressed in public health education [ 49 ]. However, we also realize that advice such as Levy’s is tailored more at civil wars and wars attempting regime change, rather than wars of annexation. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, was the first such event in Europe since World War II. Internal civic action, as recommended by Levy, carries grave personal risk when applied against the Putin regime. Diplomacy has not been successful as Russia, in the eyes of many observers, violates international treaties and security assurances [ 50 ]. In consequence, neighboring states may have to rely on a sufficiently funded military to protect their populations. This conclusion may come counter-intuitive to public health proponents [ 51 ], while in defense theories and international law and relation studies it is widely discussed and elaborated on [ 52 , 53 ]. Again, drawing from interdisciplinary collaboration could ensure deeper analytical and theoretical understandings of the terminology or concepts used in war and peacebuilding and comparability across fields. Moreover, given the contentious nature of these issues, students and teaching institutions should learn how to discuss conflicts constructively and fairly, avoiding the escalations of recent campus discourses in the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Strengths and limitations

In this Scoping Review, we analyzed the scope and extent of scientific discourse on war and peace promotion in public health education. Using a scoping review methodology allowed for a systematized and comprehensive mapping, which has been the first of its kind on the topic, at least to our knowledge. We included studies solely with a primary interest in war and peacebuilding in the public health education context. This allowed for a nuanced analysis of education programs, initiatives, or similar, which is of particular value for the overall aim of advancing public health education.

We thereby contribute to the identification of gaps and addressing them in an important area of public health work. Specifically, we have identified gaps in the European literature arena, where the topic of war and peace promotion has been mostly neglected over the past decades. In addition, we have synthesized war and peace promotion in public health education, which are usually assessed in parallel.

We limited our review to scientific databases aiming to assess the scientific discourse on war and peacebuilding in public health education and training. As a result, the review has not captured any grey literature relating to the topic; it exceeded the scope of this review. Nonetheless, it would be an important next step to assess the status quo at institutions of public health education and training within the European region. This includes Schools of Public Health and Higher Institutes or Centers for Public Health Education, many of whom lead to a graduate degree in public health and which is accredited by a recognized body, or bodies approved for such purpose. This could include for example the Secretary of Education in each European Region country or other authorizing bodies. Of note, a study in this regard, has been undertaken for specific schools of public health in the United States of America [ 31 ]. Such a study in Europe would allow for a more detailed overview of resources and expertise to advance and support the development of initiatives integrate war more systematically into public health education programs.

Since we only included studies with a primary interest in war and peacebuilding in the public health education context, we did not consider the scientific discussion touching on this topic. This was reflected many of full texts screened that ended with just a few publications with findings that could be generalized. The variability in the studies in terms of the type of war described, e.g., armed conflict or war of annexation, may present a challenge in drawing generalizable conclusions.

This scoping review identified a lack of scientific discourse on the role of war and peace promotion in public health education. The few public health education and training programs identified primarily focus on the immediate emergency response in conflict-affected areas. These were often entangled with emergency preparedness in different contexts such as infectious disease outbreaks. Peace promotion and war prevention are missing foci. This suggests a need for a far greater emphasis of the topic in public health training as well as its inclusion in competency frameworks. In addition to training public health professionals for emergencies, training with an emphasis on war prevention and promoting peace should be developed and implemented.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Levy BS, Sidel VW. War and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kerridge BT, Khan MR, Sapkota A. Terrorism, civil war, one-sided violence and global burden of disease. Med Confl Surviv. 2012;28(3):199–218.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. war noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes. In: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford; 2024. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/war?q=war . Accessed 20 Aug 2024.

How does law protect in war? The "Online Casebook" [ https://casebook.icrc.org ]

English R: Modern War: A Very Short Introduction: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Levy BS: From Horror to Hope: Oxford University Press; 2022.

Wandschneider L, Namer Y, Davidovitch N, Nitzan D, Otok R, Leighton L, Signorelli C, Middleton J, Martin-Moreno JM, Chambaud L, et al. The role of Europe’s Schools of public health in times of war: ASPHER statement on the war against Ukraine. Public Health Rev. 2022;43:1604880.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khorram-Manesh A, Goniewicz K, Burkle FM. Social and healthcare impacts of the Russian-led hybrid war in Ukraine – a conflict with unique global consequences. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023;17.

Galbreath DJ, Deni JR. Routledge Handbook Of Defence Studies. London; New York; London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Routledge; 2018.

Mann M. On Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2023.

Abouzeid M, Elzalabany MK, Nuwayhid I, Jabbour S. Conflict-related health research in Syria, 2011–2019: a scoping review for The Lancet - AUB Commission on Syria. Confl Heal. 2021;15(1):92.

Article   Google Scholar  

Iqbal Z: War and Health: A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework. In: War and the Health of Nations. edn. Edited by Iqbal Z: Stanford University Press; 2010: 30–52.

De Jong JTVM. A public health framework to translate risk factors related to political violence and war into multi-level preventive interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(1):71–9.

Santa Barbara J, MacQueen G. Peace through health: key concepts. Lancet (London, England). 2004;364(9431):384–6.

Wiist WH, Barker K, Arya N, Rohde J, Donohoe M, White S, Lubens P, Gorman G, Hagopian A. The role of public health in the prevention of war: rationale and competencies. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(6):e34–47.

Woehrle LM. Connecting health and peacebuilding in theory and practice. Peace Rev. 2019;31(2):168–77.

Bahgat K, Gray B, Kendra D, Scott G, Solveig H, Håvard Mokleiv N, et al. Inequality and armed conflict: evidence and policy recommendations. In: Conflict Trends. PRIO Oslo; 2017. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/654a94b6-62c7-4d29-8b02-1bfab0598158/Bahgat%20et%20al%20-%20Inequality%20and%20Armed%20Conflict%20Conflict%20Trends%201-2017.pdf?inline=true . Accessed 20 Aug 2024.

Baldwin C, Chapman C, Gray Z. Minority rights: the key to conflict prevention. In . Minority Rights Group International; 2007. https://minorityrights.org/resources/minority-rights-the-key-to-conflict-prevention/ . Accessed 20 Aug 2024.

Percival V, Thoms OT, Oppenheim B, Rowlands D, Chisadza C, Fewer S, Yamey G, Alexander AC, Allaham CL, Causevic S, et al. The lancet commission on peaceful societies through health equity and gender equality. Lancet (London, England). 2023;402(10413):1661–722.

Burkle FM. Challenges of Global Public Health Emergencies: Development of a Health-Crisis Management Framework. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;249(1):33–41.

Lancet T. Syndemics: health in context. Lancet (London, England). 2017;389(10072):881.

Hagopian A, Jabbour S. Global public health workers and academics must step up response to war. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):814.

AlKhaldi M, Kaloti R, Shella D, Al Basuoni A, Meghari H. Health system’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in conflict settings: policy reflections from Palestine. Glob Public Health. 2020;15(8):1244–56.

Bdaiwi Y, Sabouni A, Patel P, Ekzayez A, Alchalati S, Abdrabbuh O, Abbara A, Glogowska M. Impact of armed conflict on health professionals’ education and training in Syria: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e064851.

Tulchinsky T, Jennings B, Viehbeck S. Integrating ethics in public health education: the process of developing case studies. Public Health Rev. 2015;36:4.

Namer Y, Wandschneider L, Middleton J, Davidovitch N, Razum O. How can schools of public health actively promote peace? Public Health Rev. 2021;42:1604459.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

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

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.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

White SK, Lown B, Rohde JE. War or health? Assessing public health education and the potential for primary prevention. Public Health Rep. 2013;128(6):568–73.

Evans DP, Anderson M, Shahpar C, Del Rio C, Curran JW. Innovation in Graduate Education for Health Professionals in Humanitarian Emergencies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(5):532–8.

Joshi PT. Guidelines for international trauma work. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1998;10(3):179–85.

Kulling PEJ, Holst JEA. Educational and training systems in Sweden for prehospital response to acts of terrorism. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;18(3):184–8.

McDonnell SM, Bolton P, Sunderland N, Bellows B, White M, Noji E. The role of the applied epidemiologist in armed conflict. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2004;1(1):4.

McGann S. Collaboration and conflict in international nursing, 1920–39. Nursing history review : official journal of the American Association for the History of Nursing. 2008;16:29–57.

Ratner KG, Katona LB. The peacebuilding potential of healthcare training programs. Confl Heal. 2016;10(1):29.

Obermeier A-M, Siri Aas R: Conflict Trends: A Global Overview, 1946–2022. In: PRIO Paper. Oslo; 2023.

Brake T-M, Razum O. Prevention of War: A Scoping Review on Primary Preventive Measures in Public Health. Public Health Rev. 2023;44:1606201.

Spiegel PB, Karadag O, Blanchet K, Undie C-C, Mateus A, Horton R. The CHH-Lancet Commission on Health, Conflict, and Forced Displacement: reimagining the humanitarian system. Lancet (London, England). 2024;403(10433):1215–7.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health emergency response guide for state, local, and tribal Public Health directors. Version 2.0. In.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

Services; USDoHaH, Prevention; CfDCa: Public health emergency response guide for state, local, tribal, and territorial public health directors. Version 2.0. In.; 2018.

Gowing JR, Walker KN, Elmer SL, Cummings EA. Disaster Preparedness among Health Professionals and Support Staff: What is Effective? An Integrative Literature Review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):321–8.

Khorram-Manesh A, Lupesco O, Friedl T, Arnim G, Kaptan K, Djalali AR, Foletti M, Ingrasia PL, Ashkenazi M, Arculeo C, et al. Education in Disaster Management: What Do We Offer and What Do We Need? Proposing a New Global Program. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(6):854–73.

Perpiñá-Galvañ J, Juliá-Sanchis R, Olmos-Castelló É, Mollá-Pérez S, Sanjuan-Quiles Á. European educational programmes in health emergency and disaster management: an integrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11455.

Ripoll Gallardo A, Djalali A, Foletti M, Ragazzoni L, Della Corte F, Lupescu O, Arculeo C, Arnim G, Friedl T, Ashkenazi M, et al. Core Competencies in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance: A Systematic Review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):430–9.

Ellsberg D. Secrets: A memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers. New York: Penguin Books; 2003.

Google Scholar  

Labonté R, Martin G, Storeng KT. Editorial: Whither globalization and health in an era of geopolitical uncertainty? Glob Health. 2022;18(1):87.

Persaud A, Bhugra D, Valsraj K, Bhavsar V. Understanding geopolitical determinants of health. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(2):166–8.

Nations U: Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. UNTS, 3007(52241), 167–182. In.; 1994.

Razum O, Wandschneider L. Public Health and War: Hope Among the Horrors? Am J Public Health. 2023;113(2):133–5.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dönges HE, Hofmann SC. Defence As Security. In: Galbreath DJ, Deni JR, editors. Routledge handbook of defence studies. London; New York; London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. p. 29–39.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wither JK. Back to the future? Nordic total defence concepts. Def Stud. 2020;20(1):61–81.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Lisa Wandschneider, Anna Nowak, Anina Grün & Oliver Razum

Research Institute Social Cohesion, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Lisa Wandschneider, Anna Nowak, Anina Grün, Yudit Namer & Oliver Razum

School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Colette Cunningham

Medical University of Gdansk, Gdanks, Poland

Marta Miller

Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Yudit Namer

Department of Nutrition and Drug Research, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

Tomasz Bochenek

Department of Public Health and Social Medicine, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Lukasz Balwicki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LW, YN, CC, TB, LB and OR conceptualized and designed the Scoping Review with important intellectual input from all co-authors. LW, MM, AG, AN and CC, conducted the screening. LW, MM, AG, AN extracted the data. LW, MM and AN analyzed the data. LW, MM, AN, AG and CC created the first draft of the manuscript. CC and LW edited the manuscript prior to submission to all authors, who then contributed input to the final manuscript. CC and LW edited the final draft manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript and provided important intellectual input.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Nowak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., 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.

Wandschneider, L., Nowak, A., Miller, M. et al. War and peace in public health education and training: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 24 , 2303 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19788-w

Download citation

Received : 25 October 2023

Accepted : 13 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19788-w

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

• Prevention of war
• Peace promotion
• Public health education
• Graduate education
• Workforce development

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• University of Texas Libraries
• UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

Types of reviews.

• Formulate Question
• Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
• Register a Protocol
• Searching Systematically
• Supplementary Searching
• Managing Results
• Deduplication
• Critical Appraisal
• Glossary of terms
• Librarian Support
• Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp

Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?

There are many types of reviews ---  narrative reviews ,  scoping reviews , systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct. These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice for your research needs.

• Which review is right for you? (Univ. of Manitoba)
• What type of review is right for you? (Cornell)
• Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)
• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. by Grant & Booth
• Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Info Libr J, 2019

Label	Description	Search	Appraisal	Synthesis	Analysis
Critical Review	Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model	Seeks to identify most significant items in the field	No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution	Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological	Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory
Literature Review	Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings	May or may not include comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Typically narrative	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
Mapping review/ systematic map	Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints	No formal quality assessment	May be graphical and tabular	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research
Meta-analysis	Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses	Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary	Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review	Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies	Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies	Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists	Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies	Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other
Overview	Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics	May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not)	May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not)	Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis	Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies	May employ selective or purposive sampling	Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion	Qualitative, narrative synthesis	Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models
Rapid review	Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research	Completeness of searching determined by time constraints	Time-limited formal quality assessment	Typically narrative and tabular	Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature
Scoping review	Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress	No formal quality assessment	Typically tabular with some narrative commentary	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review
State-of-the-art review	Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research	Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature	No formal quality assessment	Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment	Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research
Systematic review	Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion	Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment	What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research
Systematic search and review	Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies	What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations
Systematized review	Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment	May or may not include comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment   Reproduced from Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 8:26 AM URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews Open access Published: 21 August 2024 An analysis of the psychometric properties of the medication safety competence scale in Turkish Ayşe Aydinli 1 & Kamuran Cerit 2   BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  578 ( 2024 ) Cite this article 78 Accesses Metrics details Considering the key roles and responsibilities of nurses in ensuring medication safety, it is necessary to understand nurses’ competence in medication safety. Therefore, it was aimed to introduce a scale evaluating the medication safety competence of nurses into Turkish and to contribute to the literature by determining the medication safety competence levels of nurses. A methodological and descriptive research design was utilised. The population consisted of nurses in Turkey, and the sample comprised 523 nurses who volunteered to participate. The content validity index of the scale was 0.98, and the scale showed a good fit (χ 2 /df = 3.00, RMSEA = 0.062). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.97, indicating high reliability. The mean score was 4.12, which was considered high. Participants who were 40 years old or above, married, and graduates of health vocational schools or postgraduate programs, along with those who had received medication safety training, had higher medication safety competence scores. This study presents strong evidence that the Turkish version of the Medication Safety Competency Scale is valid and reliable when administered to nurses. The participants in this study had high levels of medication safety competence. Peer Review reports Introduction A medication error is defined as a preventable event at any stage of drug therapy that results in incorrect drug use or harms the patient [ 1 ]. According to World Health Organization (WHO) reports, medication errors account for 20% of medical errors [ 2 ]. Medication errors decrease patients’ quality of life and result in high costs for healthcare institutions [ 3 ]. They can also lead to complications, permanent disability, and death [ 1 ]. Globally, concerns about medication errors are increasing, and various reports have emphasised the importance of reducing medication errors and improving patient safety [ 2 , 4 , 5 ]. Patient safety involves ensuring that patients are not harmed while receiving care, and medication safety is among the most important elements of patient safety [ 6 ]. Medication safety can be defined as ensuring that medications have the maximum therapeutic effect while minimising and preventing adverse reactions and accidental injuries during medication use [ 4 ]. Medication safety is a multidisciplinary and multi-stage process. Nurses constitute the majority of the healthcare team and are involved in many stages of the medication administration process; they are at the centre of medication administration and are involved in the most critical stage when any potential errors reach the patient [ 7 ]. Traditional nursing curricula consider the “right principles” as a basic standard for safe medication practices. However, nurses’ role in ensuring medication safety encompasses many other principles [ 3 ]. Limiting nurses’ responsibilities regarding medication safety to the right principles does not address all aspects of errors [ 8 ]. Medication safety requires nurses to use clinical judgment before, during, and after interventions. Nurses’ experience and knowledge are integral components of safe medication management in nursing practice [ 9 ]. Adverse effects caused by improper prescription, administration, or monitoring of medications can be decreased through good nursing practice [ 8 ]. Considering the high prevalence of medication errors and the key role of nurses in ensuring medication safety, the medication safety competence of nurses must be determined [ 4 ]. However, very few studies have assessed nurses’ medication safety competence [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Moreover, a Turkish scale to assess nurses’ the of and attitudes towards medication safety competence is needed. Therefore, this study introduced a Turkish version of a scale evaluating the medication safety competence of nurses and administered it to nurses, contributing to the literature by determining the medication safety competence levels of nurses. This study adapted the Medication Safety Competence Scale (MSCS) developed by Park and Seomun (2021) for use in a Turkish context and assessed its validity and reliability; subsequently, the scale was used to determine nurses’ the of medication safety competence [ 5 ]. Differences in the of medication safety competence between nurses with varying demographic characteristics were also investigated. Study design and participants This study was conducted methodologically and descriptively. This study was structured and reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist [ 10 ]. The population of the study comprised nurses working at various hospitals in Turkey. Convenience sampling method was used. The sample consisted of 523 nurses who were native Turkish speakers and voluntarily participated in the study. No one refused to participate in the study. There were no missing data except for 36 data related only to the worked clinic was conducted. However, these 36 data were not excluded; instead, analyses related to the clinic variable were conducted using 487 data (Tables  1 and 2 ). The sample size for conducting CFA was determined to be at least 10 times the number of scale items [ 11 ]. This rule was met for 36 items with 523 cases. In descriptive analyses, the sufficiency of the sample size was determined by a post hoc power analysis. As a result of the post hoc power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1.9.7, the power of the study was calculated as 85% with an effect size of 0.26 and a significance level of 0.05 [ 12 ]. Data collection A demographic information form was used to determine the demographic characteristics of the nurses, and the MSCS was used to determine their the of medication safety competence. The demographic information form consists of 10 questions. The form, which was prepared by the researchers in line with the literature, consists of questions with demographic characteristics of the nurses such as age, gender and worked clinics [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The MSCS was developed by Park and Seomun in 2021 [ 5 ]. The scale consists of 36 items divided into six subdimensions. The dimensions are patient-centred medication management (Items 1,4,5, 6,7,8, 13,24,26); multidisciplinary collaboration (Items 20,27,30,33); safety risk management (Items 2,15,16,21,25,28); management of effecting factors (Items 3,9,11,12,14,18); improvement of safety problems (Items 10,19,22,29,31,32,34,35); and responsibility in the nursing profession (Items 17,23,36). The scale is a five-point Likert scale. The total score ranges from 36 to 180. Scores between 36 and 75 represent poor medication safety competence, scores between 76 and 130 indicate moderate medication safety competence, and a score of 180 represents high medication safety competence [ 6 ]. Data were collected through an online survey between February 1 and March 31, 2023. Participants were reached via social media (WhatsApp, Instagram story, etc.) and invited to participate in the online survey prepared through Google Forms. An informed consent form was attached to the first part of the questionnaire and participation was voluntary. The response time of the questionnaires was 8–10 min. This study was conducted in two stages: methodological and descriptive. Methodological stage This stage consisted of translation and psychometric testing. To adapt the scale for use in a Turkish context, permission was obtained from the researchers who developed the original scale. Back translation was used for language validity. The content validity of the Turkish version of the scale was tested. After receiving expert opinions, the scale was translated back into English (supplementary file- 1 ). After the translated version was sent to the researchers who developed the scale and approval was obtained, data collection was started with the Turkish form. Data were then collected for psychometric testing. The validity and reliability of the original scale were tested with data from the 523 participants. Descriptive stage In this stage, nurses’ the of medication safety competence were determined and analysed according to several demographic characteristics. Data from the 523 participants were used in this stage. Data Analysis Data were analysed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 26.0, LISREL v. 8.80, and Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics Means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous data, and percentages were calculated for categorical data. The adequacy of the multivariate normal distribution of the data was assessed using Mardia’s skewness and kurtosis tests. Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for comparison between groups of nurses with different demographic characteristics. Item analysis To determine whether the scale had an ideal discrimination ability, the total score of the scale was ranked from high to low, and the difference between the first 27% and the last 27% was analysed. Furthermore, item-total score correlation coefficients were calculated. Validity analysis Eleven experts rated the items of the adapted scale from 1 to 4 for content validity (1: not appropriate; 2: partially appropriate, the item needs to be revised; 3: appropriate but minor changes are needed; 4 very appropriate). The item content validity index (I-CVI) and the scale content validity index (S-CVI) were calculated using the method proposed by Davis (1992) [ 13 ]. The I-CVI is the ratio of the number of experts who assign each item 3 or 4 points to the total number of experts. The S-CVI is the average I-CVI for all items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied for the construct validity, and fit indices were evaluated. The values of chi-square (χ 2 )/degree of freedom (df), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), non-normed fit index (NNFI), normed fit index (NFI), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square residual (RMR), goodness of fit index (GFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were examined. Also average variance extracted (AVE) and Construct reliability (CR) were examined for convergent validity. Reliability analysis Cronbach’s alpha (α) and split-half reliability were calculated to assess internal consistency. To assess test–retest reliability, intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated by collecting data from 30 nurses at 2-week intervals. The data obtained for the test-retest were not included in the sample. Ethical considerations Ethical approval. of the study was obtained from the Suleyman Demirel University Institutional Ethics Committee (decision number: 87432956-050.99-423263). Informed consent was obtained from the participating nurses in the first part of the online survey. The study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Most participants (94.5%) were female, 61.2% were between the ages of 20–29 years, 53.7% were married, 72.7% had a Bachelor’s degree, and 54.9% had 1–5 years of professional experience. Furthermore, 79.2% of the participants reported that they had received training or courses on medication safety, 79.5% reported that medication administration principles were followed in the clinic where they worked, and 76.7% stated that medication administration was performed following the hospital’s medication administration rules and procedures (Table  1 ). The results of the methodological and descriptive stages of the study are provided in the following two sections. Results of the methodological stage The scale was translated into Turkish by four translators who were native Turkish speakers and fluent in English. The researchers then combined the four translations into a single form. In the second step, this form was translated back into English by an expert who was not one of the previous translators. The expert review was conducted by nine nursing instructors and two nurses with master’s degrees. The I-CVI ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, and the S-CVI was 0.98. To assess the face validity of the Turkish form, a preliminary application was performed with 20 nurses. To ensure that they were comprehensible in Turkish, the expression “human factors” in the item “Understanding the role of human factors, such as fatigue, that affect medication safety” was changed to “personal factors”, and the expression “understanding the role” in “Understanding the role of environmental factors such as workflow, ergonomics, and resources, which affect medication safety” was changed to “understanding the effect”. With these adjustments, the scale form adapted to Turkish was finalised. Data from the pilot study were not included in the sample. The results of CFA are shown in Table  3 . The fitness indices of the original scale (model 1) (χ 2 /df = 1921.97/579 = 3.32, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.98) were determined to be at an acceptable level (Fig.  1 ). However, modification indices were examined, and the original scale was modified sequentially as follows: item 28 and item 31, item 25 and item 31, item 10 and item 11, respectively. The modification of model 2 was achieved by freeing the error terms (permitting correlated errors) of the items without excluding any items (Fig.  2 ). CFA results of Model I: standard loadings and error variances CFA results of Model II: standard loadings and error variances The fitness indices of the final scale (model 2) were as follows: χ 2 /df = 3.00, RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.78, AGFI = 0.74. The standard loadings of the items in the final scale ranged from 0.46 to 0.83. The squared multiple correlations (SMC-R 2 ) ranged from 0.21 to 0.68 (Table  4 ). Furthermore, the fit indices attained in both models were acceptable. Nevertheless, model 2 exhibited superior χ2/df and RMSEA values, indicating that it outperformed model 1. For convergent validity, the CRs ranged from 0.68 to 0.79 and were higher than the AVE values (0.40 to 0.60). The correlation between factors ranged from 0.687 to 0.868 (Table  5 ). Item analyses revealed that the item-total correlations were between 0.46 and 0.77 (Table  4 ). A statistically significant difference (t: −30.601, p  < 0.001) was observed between the mean scores of the groups with the lowest 27% of scores and the highest 27% of scores. As shown in Table  5 , the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.97. The split-half reliability was 0.912, and the test–retest reliability (ICC) was 0.939. Result of the descriptive stage The participants’ total mean score of MSCS was 147.81 ± 21.29, indicating a average level of medication safety competence. The lowest score was obtained in the RNP dimension (11.88 ± 2.05 points) and the highest score was obtained in the PCMM dimension (38.21 ± 5.14 points) (Table  5 ). Table  2 presents the comparison of participants’ the of medication safety competence according to their demographic characteristics. No differences were observed in the participants’ the of medication safety competence according to gender and the type of clinic they worked in. However, significant differences were found according to age, marital status, educational level, professional experience, and the type of hospital in which the nurses worked. Participants aged 40 years and older had higher the of medication safety competence than those aged 20–29 years; married participants had higher than single participants; and those with health vocational school and postgraduate degrees had higher than those with undergraduate degrees. In addition, nurses who received training or courses on medication safety, those who thought that the principles of medication administration were followed in the clinic where they worked, and those who thought that medication administration was performed following the hospital’s medication administration rules and procedures had higher the of medication safety competence ( p  < 0.05). Discussion of the Methodological Stage This study was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the MSCS. This study found that the Turkish version of the MSC scale meets the criteria of language validity, content validity, construct validity, and reliability. The validity and reliability of the scale have also been confirmed in Chinese and Persian [ 4 , 6 ]. In this study, the Turkish version of the scale was created using the back translation method for language validity. Then the content validity of the scale was evaluated according to Davis’s (1992) technique [ 13 ]. Because the CVI values of all items were above 0.80, no items were removed at this stage. CFA was performed to verify construct validity. Two models were analysed: the original scale (model 1) and the final scale (model 2). According to the factor loadings and modification indices of model 1 and model 2, the measurement validity of the Turkish version of the MSCS was confirmed. Thus, no items were removed from the scale at this stage. The χ 2 /df of the final scale was 3.00; this value is considered acceptable, as it is less than 5 [ 14 ]. The RMSEA value of 0.062 is an important indicator of the acceptable fit of the final scale. The RMR (0.042) and SRMR (0.057) values showed perfect and acceptable fit, respectively [ 15 ]. The CFI was above 0.95, indicating perfect fit [ 16 ]. The NFI and NNFI were also above 0.95, indicating perfect fit [ 17 , 18 ]. In CFA, it is recommended that the factor loadings of the items factors should be above 0.50 [ 10 ]. In this study, the factor loadings of the items were between 0.46 and 0.83 (Table  4 ). Thus, the fit indices and item factor loadings confirmed the construct validity of the final scale. The AVEs of the factors were higher than 0.50 in all subdimensions except for RNP and MEF. Moreover, the CRs were between 0.68 and 0.79, higher than the recommended value of 0.70 and the AVE values (Table  5 ). These results confirmed the scale’s convergent validity. Finally, item analyses showed that the items in the scale had good discrimination. Similarly, the Chinese version [ 4 ], the original scale [ 5 ] and the Persian version [ 6 ] also reported high factor loadings, acceptable fit indices and CRs above 0.70. In line with these results, it can be said that the scale provides an adequate level of validity. Reliability The reliability of the scale was evaluated by calculating split-half reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, CR and ICC. Cronbach’s alpha value should be at least 0.70 [ 11 , 19 ]. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97, whereas it was 0.94 in the Chinese version [ 4 ], 0.94 in the original scale [ 5 ], and 0.96 in the Persian version [ 6 ]. The CR values reported as more appropriate reliability measures for CFA-based studies [ 11 ] are higher than the proposed value of 0.70. These results show that the scale has good internal reliability in samples from different cultures. In this study, the split-half reliability of the scale was 0.912, and the test–retest reliability was 0.939. The split-half reliability of the Chinese version of the scale was 0.671, and the test–retest reliability was 0.703 [ 4 ]. For the Persian version, the test–retest reliability was also 0.90 [ 6 ]. These values indicate the stability of the various versions of the scale [ 20 ]. Discussion of the descriptive phase To date, nurses’ medication safety competency has generally been examined within the framework of the right principles [ 21 , 22 ] or reporting medication errors [ 23 , 24 ]. However, medication safety is a concept that transcends the right principles [ 3 , 8 ], and previous studies measuring nurses’ medication safety competency have been insufficient. The medication safety competence scores of the nurses in this study were average. Mohebi et al. (2024) also reported the medication safety competence of nursing students at an average level. These results could indicate that the medication safety competence of nurses and students were adequate but needed further development [ 25 ]. These results may be explained by the fact that most of the nurses in the study received training or courses on medication safety. Moreover, in recent years, in Turkey and other countries, patient and medication safety issues have been important issues of health policies and hospitals in Turkey. Although the issue is important, a study conducted in Turkey found that almost half of the nurses reported that no institutional procedures were in place for medication safety in hospitals [ 26 ]. In this study nurses’ the of medication safety competence differ according to age, marital status, education level, professional experience, hospital type, and the types of training or courses on medication safety the nurses have received. More studies investigating nurses’ the of medication safety competence are warranted, along with studies assessing differences in the of medication safety competence between nurses with varying demographic characteristics. This study provides strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the scale in Turkish. It is also the first study to determine the medication safety competencies of nurses working in Turkey. This study presents strong evidence that the Turkish version of the MSCS is valid and reliable among nurses. The medication safety competency levels of the nurses participating in this study were average. The assessment results of the scale provide a reference for nursing administrators to help them formulate educational plans improve the medication safety competence of nurses. Limitations One of the strengths of this study is its application of the scale to a large sample. Although the methodological results are important, the adapted scale is specific to nurses in Turkey. However, the results regarding nurses’ medication safety competence obtained in the study’s second stage provide a substantial contribution to the literature. Data availability Data Availability StatementThe data supporting this study’s findings are available on re-quest from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Mendes JR, Lopes MCBT, Vancini-Campanharo CR, Okuno MFP, Batista REA. Types and frequency of errors in the preparation and administration of drugs. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2018;16(3):eAO4146. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082018AO4146 . Article   PubMed   Google Scholar   WHO. WHO launches global effort to halve medication-related errors in 5 years; 2017 [cited Mary 17, 2023]. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/medication-related-errors/en/ Choo J, Hutchinson A, Bucknall T. Nurses’ role in medication safety. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(7):853–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01164.x . Yang Z, Chen F, Lu Y, Zhang H. Psychometric evaluation of medication safety competence scale for clinical nurses. BMC Nurs. 2021;9(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00679-z . Article   Google Scholar   Park J, Seomun G. Development and validation of the Medication Safety competence scale for nurses. West J Nurs Res. 2021;43(7):686–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945920969929 . Mohammadi F, Kouhpayeh SA, Bijani M, Farjam M, Faghihi A, Badiyepeymaiejahromi Z. Translation and psychometric assessment of a persian version of medication safety competence scale (MSCS) for clinical nurses. Sci Rep. 2023;8(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29399-x . Article   CAS   Google Scholar   Adhikari R, Tocher J, Smith P, Corcoran J, MacArthur J. A multi-disciplinary approach to medication safety and the implication for nursing education and practice. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(2):185–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.10.008 . Vaismoradi M, Griffiths P, Turunen H, Jordan S. Transformational leadership in nursing and medication safety education: a discussion paper. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24(7):970–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12387 . Babaoğlu AB, Tekindal M, Büyükuysal MÇ, Tözün M, Elmalı F, Bayraktaroğlu T. Reporting of observational studies in epidemiology: Turkish adaptation of STROBE Criteria. Med J West Black Sea. 2021;5(1):86–93. Google Scholar   Rohde E, Domm E. Nurses’ clinical reasoning practices that support safe medication administration: an integrative review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(3–4):402–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14077 . Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham R. Multivariate Data Analysis: Cengage (8th Ed.). 2018. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 . Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80008-4 . Erkorkmaz U, Etikan I, Demir O, Ozdamar K, Sanisoglu SY. Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices: review. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2013;33(1):210–23. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747 . Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: test of sig- nificance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Research-Online. 2003;8(2):23–74. Karagöz Y. SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı nicel-nitel-karma bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği. Sivas: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık, 2017:24–551. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole. 2007. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: theory and applications. Sage Publications, 2017;31–5. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting ıntraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2017;16(4):346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 . Martyn JA, Paliadelis P, Perry C. The safe administration of medication: nursing behaviours beyond the five-rights. Nurse Educ Pract 2019 May;37:109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.05.006 Hanson A, Haddad LM. Nursing rights of medication administration. StatPearls Publishing. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560654/ Dirik HF, Samur M, Seren Intepeler S, Hewison A. Nurses’ identification and reporting of medication errors. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(5–6):931–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14716 . Hung CC, Chu TP, Lee BO, Hsiao CC. Nurses’ attitude and intention of medication administration error reporting. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(3–4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13071 . Mohebi Z, Bijani M, Dehghan A. Investigating safe nursing care and medication safety competence in nursing students: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Iran. BMC Nurs. 2024;23(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01684-0 . Published 2024 Jan 2. Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar   Güneş ÜY, Gürlek Ö, Sönmez M. Factors contributing to medication errors in Turkey: nurses’ perspectives. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22(3):295–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12216 . Download references Acknowledgements We thank the nurses who participated in this study and the experts who suggested content validity. No funding has been received. Author information Authors and affiliations. Department of Fundamental Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey Ayşe Aydinli Department of Nursing Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey Kamuran Cerit You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar Contributions AA and KC contributed to the study aim, research design, and overall structure of the manuscript. AA collected the data. KC conducted all the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Corresponding author Correspondence to Ayşe Aydinli . Ethics declarations Consent for publication. Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Declaration of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study were reported. Additional information Publisher’s note. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Electronic supplementary material Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary Material 1 Rights and permissions. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Reprints and permissions About this article Cite this article. Aydinli, A., Cerit, K. An analysis of the psychometric properties of the medication safety competence scale in Turkish. BMC Nurs 23 , 578 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02240-0 Download citation Received : 19 May 2024 Accepted : 07 August 2024 Published : 21 August 2024 DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02240-0 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 Patient safety Clinical competence Reliability and validity BMC Nursing ISSN: 1472-6955 General enquiries: [email protected] An official website of the United States government. Here’s how you know 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. American Job Centers Apprenticeship Demonstration Grants Farmworkers Federal Bonding Program Foreign Labor Certification Indians and Native Americans Job Seekers Layoffs and Rapid Response National Dislocated Worker Grants Older Workers Skills Training Grants Trade Adjustment Assistance Unemployment Insurance Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) WIOA Adult Program Advisories and Directives Regulations Labor Surplus Area Performance Recovery-Ready Workplace Resource Hub Research and Evaluation ETA News Releases Updates for Workforce Professionals Regional Offices Freedom of Information Act Office of Apprenticeship Office of Foreign Labor Certification Office of Grants Management Office of Job Corps Office of Unemployment Insurance (1-877-S-2JOBS) Equity in Grant-Making: A Review of Barriers and Strategies for Funders Considering Improvement Opportunities Publication info, research methodology, description. In 2023 the Chief Evaluation Office partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to fund a study focused on exploring approaches to measure and increase equity in ETA’s discretionary grant-making programs. This study sought to explore how grant-makers – such as Federal agencies, State and local government agencies, and philanthropic organizations – define, assess, and increase equity in their grant-making process. This study explores research and strategies related to equity in the discretionary grant-making process based on a review of publicly available literature and Federal agency Equity Action Plans as well as interviews with Federal and philanthropic grant-makers. The report describes how funders define equity in the context of awarding grants, common barriers and promising action steps to increase equity in each stage of the grant-making process (pre-award, collection of applications, funding of awards, and post-award), and measurement strategies to help funders track their progress. This report can support a variety of grant-makers examining equity, whether at government agencies (including at Federal, State, and local levels) or foundations. Recognizing that grant-making organizations vary in size, policy area, and scope, the study team provides findings and suggestions that funders can tailor to meet their context and goals. The findings focus on domestic (U.S.-based) grant-making, though international or transnational grant-makers may also find useful insights. Key takeaways include: When selecting strategies to increase equity, grant-makers may invest time and resources to communicate the new approach to potential applicants and build trust, particularly with organizations and groups that provide services to underrepresented communities. For example, reviewed resources encourage funders to expand the networks they use to announce new funding opportunities and participate in community events. These trust-building activities may encourage new organizations to apply for grant programs and create space to provide feedback on challenging or inequitable aspects of the grant-making process.  Study interviewees also emphasized the value of continued internal communications with funding staff to build organizational motivation to implement and refine equity initiatives. Communication efforts include describing goals and progress, holding training sessions to increase awareness of action steps, and sharing tools to streamline implementation and affect change.  By implementing strategies to increase equity in grant-making, funders take a critical step toward addressing systemic inequities in the type of organizations, individuals, and communities that receive grant funding.    121 IMAGES 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide & Samples) 15 Literature Review Examples (2024) Literature Review: Outline, Strategies, and Examples A Complete Guide on How to Write Good a Literature Review Types of literature review. 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide & Samples) COMMENTS Types of Literature Review 1. Narrative Literature Review. A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic. How to Write a Literature Review Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review. What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples) A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ... Literature Review Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ... Types of Literature Reviews Types of Literature Reviews. ... Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies: Literature Review: Types of literature reviews Narrative or traditional literature reviews. Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) Scoping reviews. Systematic literature reviews. Annotated bibliographies. These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Literature Review Types, Taxonomies Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies. Narrative (Literature) Review - Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of ... Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how understanding of the topic has change throughout time. Types of Literature Reviews. ... Example: The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review: 10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w; How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template) As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I'll break down into three steps: Finding the most suitable literature. Understanding, distilling and organising the literature. Planning and writing up your literature review chapter. Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. Getting started What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ... A Complete Guide on How to Write Good a Literature Review 1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. Types of reviews Types of reviews and examples. Definition: "A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265). Characteristics: Example: Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review. 15 Literature Review Examples (2024) For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics. 1. Narrative Review Examples. Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic. Literature Reviews See also a table of main review types characterized by methods used in: Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). ... Literature reviews can also be found by searching Omni and adding the phrase "literature review" to your topic. Sample search string would be: pandemic AND "literature review" Steps for Conducting a Literature Review 1. Choose a topic. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews 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. Research Guides: Research at NJAES : Literature Reviews There are many different types of literature reviews from traditional literature reviews to rigorous systematic reviews. Each has its own methodology. Please review resources on this page and familiarize yourself with the task, commitment, and purpose of each before trying to decide on the type of review best fitting your research question. Types of Reviews and Their Differences There are many types of literature reviews. The purposes of a literature review will vary, and the sources used in one will depend on the discipline and the review's topic. Literature reviews may have differences that include: Purpose: The reason or objective of the review. One review may be to see how much has been published on a topic (a ... How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template) Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic. Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these. Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one) Inform your own methodology and research design. To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure. 14 Types Of Literature Review 4 Major Types Of Literature Review. The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they're like the "go-to" methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Types of Literature Review The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies: Narrative literature review, also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about ... PDF LITERATURE REVIEWS 2. MOTIVATE YOUR RESEARCH in addition to providing useful information about your topic, your literature review must tell a story about how your project relates to existing literature. popular literature review narratives include: ¡ plugging a gap / filling a hole within an incomplete literature ¡ building a bridge between two "siloed" literatures, putting literatures "in conversation" Types of Literature Reviews Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews: Argumentative Review. This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ... Sample Literature Reviews Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help! Types of Literature Reviews The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below. Common Types of Literature Reviews 1 Narrative (Literature) Review. A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology; Search strategies ... A literature review of genetics and epigenetics of HCV-related ... Background and objective: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a significant global health burden and ranks as the fifth most prevalent cancer on a global scale. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains one of the major risk factors for HCC development. HCC is a heterogeneous disease, and the development of HCC caused by HCV is intricate and involves various factors, including genetic ... War and peace in public health education and training: a scoping review The research team, representing expertise from schools of public health across Europe, developed the search strategy with the help of the Population, Comparison and Context (PCC) Framework [].We opted for a Scoping Review methodology, since it allows for 'a preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature' as well as 'identify the nature and extent of ... Types of Reviews Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). ... Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies ... an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies ... An analysis of the psychometric properties of the medication safety One of the strengths of this study is its application of the scale to a large sample. Although the methodological results are important, the adapted scale is specific to nurses in Turkey. However, the results regarding nurses' medication safety competence obtained in the study's second stage provide a substantial contribution to the literature. Equity in Grant-Making: A Review of Barriers and Strategies for Funders For example, reviewed resources encourage funders to expand the networks they use to announce new funding opportunities and participate in community events. ... .This study explores research and strategies related to equity in the discretionary grant-making process based on a review of publicly available literature and Federal agency Equity ... essay homework paper phd project resume review speech study thesis