literature review and organization

Organizing and Creating Information

• Citation and Attribution

What Is a Literature Review?

Review the literature, write the literature review, further reading, learning objectives, attribution.

This guide is designed to:

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review

A literature review is a summary and synthesis of scholarly research on a specific topic. It should answer questions such as:

• What research has been done on the topic?
• Who are the key researchers and experts in the field?
• What are the common theories and methodologies?
• Are there challenges, controversies, and contradictions?
• Are there gaps in the research that your approach addresses?

The process of reviewing existing research allows you to fine-tune your research question and contextualize your own work. Preparing a literature review is a cyclical process. You may find that the research question you begin with evolves as you learn more about the topic.

Once you have defined your research question , focus on learning what other scholars have written on the topic.

In order to  do a thorough search of the literature  on the topic, define the basic criteria:

• Databases and journals: Look at the  subject guide  related to your topic for recommended databases. Review the  tutorial on finding articles  for tips. 
• Books: Search BruKnow, the Library's catalog. Steps to searching ebooks are covered in the  Finding Ebooks tutorial .
• What time period should it cover? Is currency important?
• Do I know of primary and secondary sources that I can use as a way to find other information?
• What should I be aware of when looking at popular, trade, and scholarly resources ? 

One strategy is to review bibliographies for sources that relate to your interest. For more on this technique, look at the tutorial on finding articles when you have a citation .

Tip: Use a Synthesis Matrix

As you read sources, themes will emerge that will help you to organize the review. You can use a simple Synthesis Matrix to track your notes as you read. From this work, a concept map emerges that provides an overview of the literature and ways in which it connects. Working with Zotero to capture the citations, you build the structure for writing your literature review.

How do I know when I am done?

A key indicator for knowing when you are done is running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered, you are likely exhausting your current search and should modify search terms or search different catalogs or databases. It is also possible that you have reached a point when you can start writing the literature review.

Tip: Manage Your Citations

These citation management tools also create citations, footnotes, and bibliographies with just a few clicks:

Zotero Tutorial

Endnote Tutorial

Your literature review should be focused on the topic defined in your research question. It should be written in a logical, structured way and maintain an objective perspective and use a formal voice.

Review the Summary Table you created for themes and connecting ideas. Use the following guidelines to prepare an outline of the main points you want to make. 

• Synthesize previous research on the topic.
• Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
• Include literature that supports your research question as well as that which offers a different perspective.
• Avoid relying on one author or publication too heavily.
• Select an organizational structure, such as chronological, methodological, and thematic.

The three elements of a literature review are introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

• Define the topic of the literature review, including any terminology.
• Introduce the central theme and organization of the literature review.
• Summarize the state of research on the topic.
• Frame the literature review with your research question.
• Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
• Look for patterns and find ways to tie the pieces together.
• Summarize instead of quote.
• Weave the points together rather than list summaries of each source.
• Include the most important sources, not everything you have read.
• Summarize the review of the literature.
• Identify areas of further research on the topic.
• Connect the review with your research.
• DeCarlo, M. (2018). 4.1 What is a literature review? In Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education. https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/4-1-what-is-a-literature-review/
• Literature Reviews (n.d.) https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/ Accessed Nov. 10, 2021

This guide was designed to: 

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing 
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review​

Content on this page adapted from: 

Frederiksen, L. and Phelps, S. (2017).   Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students.  Licensed CC BY 4.0

• << Previous: EndNote
• Last Updated: Jun 7, 2024 10:15 AM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

Literature Reviews

• "How To" Books
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Organizing the Literature Review
• Writing the Literature Review
• Endnote This link opens in a new window
• Evaluating Websites

Organization

Organization of your Literature Review

What is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? What order should you present them?

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

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).

Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing the literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

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

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

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

Chronological

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication

Order your sources chronologically by publication if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Another way to organize sources chronologically is to examine the sources under a trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Using this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.

More authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

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

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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

• << Previous: Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Nov 2, 2021 12:11 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/literature-review
• Request a Class
• Hours & Locations
• Ask a Librarian
• Special Collections
• Library Faculty & Staff

Library Administration: 631.632.7100

• Stony Brook Home
• Campus Maps
• Web Accessibility Information
• Accessibility Barrier Report Form

Comments or Suggestions? | Library Webmaster

Except where otherwise noted, this work by SBU Libraries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Literature Review Guide: How to organise the review

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Search strategies and Databases
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to organise the review
• Library summary
• Emerald Infographic

How to structure your literature review (ignore the monotone voice as advice is good)

How to structure and write your literature review

• Chronological, ie. by date of publication or trend
• Methodological
• Use Cooper's taxonomy to explore and determine what elements and categories to incorporate into your review
• Revise and proofread your review to ensure your arguments, supporting evidence and writing is clear and precise

Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach . British Journal of Nursing, 17 (1), pp.38-43.

Different ways to organise a Literature Review

CHRONOLOGICAL (by date): This is one of the most common ways, especially for topics that have been talked about for a long time and have changed over their history. Organise it in stages of how the topic has changed: the first definitions of it, then major time periods of change as researchers talked about it, then how it is thought about today.

BROAD-TO-SPECIFIC : Another approach is to start with a section on the general type of issue you're reviewing, then narrow down to increasingly specific issues in the literature until you reach the articles that are most specifically similar to your research question, thesis statement, hypothesis, or proposal. This can be a good way to introduce a lot of background and related facets of your topic when there is not much directly on your topic but you are tying together many related, broader articles.

MAJOR MODELS or MAJOR THEORIES : When there are multiple models or prominent theories, it is a good idea to outline the theories or models that are applied the most in your articles. That way you can group the articles you read by the theoretical framework that each prefers, to get a good overview of the prominent approaches to your concept.

PROMINENT AUTHORS : If a certain researcher started a field, and there are several famous people who developed it more, a good approach can be grouping the famous author/researchers and what each is known to have said about the topic. You can then organise other authors into groups by which famous authors' ideas they are following. With this organisation it can help to look at the citations your articles list in them, to see if there is one author that appears over and over.

CONTRASTING SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT : If you find a dominant argument comes up in your research, with researchers taking two sides and talking about how the other is wrong, you may want to group your literature review by those schools of thought and contrast the differences in their approaches and ideas.

Ways to structure your Literature Review

Different ways to organise your literature review include:

• Topical order (by main topics or issues, showing relationship to the main problem or topic)
• Chronological order (simplest of all, organise by dates of published literature)
• Problem-cause-solution order
• General to specific order
• Known to unknown order
• Comparison and contrast order
• Specific to general order
• << Previous: Videos
• Next: Library summary >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

The Literature Review: 5. Organizing the Literature Review

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

1. Organizing Principles

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

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

4. Selected Online Resources

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

2. Structure of the Literature Review

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

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

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

• Introduction

Introduction - profile of the study

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

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

For a thematic review:

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

From each of the section summaries:

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

5. A Final Checklist

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

3. Tips on Structure

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

• additionally

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

• on the other hand
• nonetheless

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

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

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

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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 June 11, 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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in 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 used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

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 primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

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 [see below].

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 or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

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

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon 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. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own 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. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . 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?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

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

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 12, 2024 8:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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 .

You Might Also Like:

27 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

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

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

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

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

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

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

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

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

Why do a literature review?

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

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

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

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

What does a literature review look like?

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Sources

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

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 10, 2024 3:24 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

Conducting a Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Define your Research Question
• Finding Sources
• Evaluating Sources

Organizing the Review

• Cite and Manage your Sources

Introduction

Organizing your literature review involves examining the sources you have and determining how they best fit together to form a coherent and complete narrative. However you choose to do this, the goal should be to organize your literature in a way that naturally flows and makes sense to your reader.

Additional Resources

• Literature Review: Conducting & Writing by the University of West Florida Libraries
• Literature Reviews: Organizing Your Research by the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Hunt Library

A literature review is structured similarly to other research essays, opening with an introduction that explains the topic and summarizes how the review will be conducted, several body paragraphs organized to share your findings, and a concluding paragraph.

There are many different ways to organize the body of your review. Some possible approaches are listed below.

Subtopic/Theme

While they all share the same overarching topic, each source approaches it in a slightly different way, valuing certain aspects or methods more than others. For example, with a literature review about the impacts of the Affordable Care Act, some literature might focus on the demographic changes in access to healthcare, or the actions taken by private health insurance companies, or even the way healthcare is discussed in politics. By combining sources that discuss the same subtopics, you can organize your review to show how the articles overlap and complement one another to create a more complete view of the existing research.

For a thematic literature review, each body paragraph would consist of one of these themes, or subtopics, and the literature associated with it.

Alternatively, you can group your resources by their relevance to your research question. Again using the ACA as an example, it might be a good idea to begin with the sources that most broadly address the impacts of the Affordable Care Act and then order the literature by increasing specificity. 

Methodology

It may be the case that your literature can be neatly defined into different types of research, such as different methods to treat an illness or ways to test a hypothesis. Examining the literature by the ways in which the authors tried to answer questions associated with the topic is a useful way to compare and contrast research results, as well as identify potential strengths or weaknesses in the methodologies used.

Varying Opinions/Problem & Solution(s)

Your various sources might not all come to the same conclusions about the topic; in fact, especially with controversial subject matter, there may be widely differing opinions on the issues and how best to approach them. Related to the thematic review, this type of literature review structure uses the first body paragraph to pose a question, then each of the body paragraphs illustrating the differing answers found in the literature. It is an excellent way to address arguments and counter-arguments if your topic is hotly contested in academic and popular works.

If you find yourself struggling to differentiate your sources by topic or relevance because they are all about equal in these regards, it might be a good idea to organize them chronologically.

There are two major types of chronology literature reviews tend to be grouped by:

• Publication date : Start with the earliest-published research and finish with the most current
• By trend : Organize sources into eras based on the time period and relative events associated with the topic. For example, regarding the Affordable Care Act, it could be split into the time before the ACA was passed, the immediate aftermath (2010-2011), Obama's second term (2012-2016), etc.

Using a Synthesis Matrix

A literature review doesn't merely summarize the current research on a topic: part of your responsibility is to take this information and make something new out of it that can be used by future researchers. This process of combining other sources of information and making an original argument out of them is called  synthesis , which literally means "the combination of ideas to form a theory or system." You will synthesize the literature you've selected for review to form an argument about where more research needs to be done on your topic.

One of the most important elements of synthesis in a literature review is analysis: rather than simply repeating the results of each source you've found, you are going to analyze it for similarities to your other resources, limitations and strengths of the methodology, and an examination of the conclusions drawn by the author(s) compared to the rest of the research on the topic. This is why proper organization of the literature is so important; it will allow you to group your sources by theme so that they can be more easily compared and contrasted.

In addition to the recommendations elsewhere on this page, a common method for preparing to organize your literature is by using a synthesis matrix. This is a tool to help pick out the most important aspects of each source and see where the most common themes lie. 

With the major information organized like this, it is easy to see which resources used similar methods of research, which had similar or differing results, and when chronologically the research was conducted. Grouping the literature by any of these similarities could be a useful way to organize your review.

• How to Synthesize Your Literature Review by Britt McGowan & UWF Libraries
• Synthesizing Sources by Purdue Online Writing Lab

Questions the Literature Review Should Answer

The University of the West Indies (linked below) provides a useful checklist of questions that a good literature review should address. When outlining your review, pay attention to how you will answer the following:

These will likely be answered throughout your body paragraphs, but it might be worthwhile to address some of these in the conclusion instead or in addition.

• Organizing the Literature Review by the University of the West Indies

• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 10:37 AM
• URL: https://libraryservices.acphs.edu/lit_review

× The Libraries will be closed for Juneteenth on Wednesday, June 19th. Enjoy the holiday!

× sherrill library will be closed from may 18 - september 2 due to construction. services by appointment: research consultations, library instruction, pick up appointments moriarty library will be open may 28 - august 16, monday - thursday from 10am-6pm, friday from 9am-noon. closed weekends and holidays. as always, our web resources are available 24/7. questions our chat and ask us services are available monday-thursday, 10am-6pm and friday 9am-noon., × the libraries will be closed for memorial day weekend from friday-monday, may 24-27. enjoy the holiday, × spring break: monday, 03/13/2023 - sunday, 03/19/2023: library pickups are by appointment. need an appointment email us at sherrill library: [email protected] or moriarty library: [email protected], × alert mm/dd/yyyy: something is broken please contact us with questions., × alert 12/14/2023: ebsco allsearch is unavailable. we are working to fix this as quickly as we can. in the meanwhile, please try searching for articles from our proquest central database and for ebooks and books from our flo catalog . we're very sorry for the inconveniance. --> × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more for other campus plans, see the lesley university covid-19 response. any other questions ask us, × welcome back our remote services guide has everything you need to know about library services we're offering this semester, including research help, study spaces, and more any other questions ask us.

• Literature Review
• What type of literature review should you write?
• Hide Menu Thingy Widget
• Additional Guides & Reading Materials

Library & Research Help

• Sherrill Library: 617-349-8850
• Moriarty Library: 617-349-8070
• Text: 617-340-8008
• Research Help:  Ask Us!
• Email:  [email protected]
• Art & Design Research Email: [email protected]

There are different methods to organize and present the materials collected for the literature review.

The list below goes over different organizational frameworks that can be used to present the research conducted. If you are not sure what method to use, check with your professor.​

• Chronological:  The chronological framework organizes the literature in the order in which they are published. For example, if you were writing about a specific teaching method, you would begin with the materials that first introduced the method. You would then follow with case studies applying that method. You would conclude your review with contemporary papers that may even give a historical perspective on the method from when it was first conceived and how it is applied today.
• by publication:  This framework is useful if you notice a series of articles that are written in response to one another that are all within one publication. You still follow chronological order, but you break it so that the articles responding to one another are grouped together.
• by trend:  This framework looks at specific trends and organizes them chronologically. For example, if you were looking at the history of assistive technology in helping students with disabilities, you may organize the reviews by what disability was being treated, and then present the history of using assistive technology to treat that particular disability in chronological order.
• Thematic:  The thematic framework is similar to organizing by trend, except that you are not organizing the reviews in the order that they were published. This does not mean that you do not consider the timeline for how a topic or issue developed, but that you will not focus on organizing your reviews chronologically. Rather, the emphasis will be on the themes you find within the topic or issue — such as commonalities — and from there you fit your reviews into the separate ideas in which they fit. For example, if the review topic was arts-based research, your review may focus on different ways artistic inquiry was used to understand the creative process, focusing then on the concepts rather than the development.
• Methodological:  The method or practice applied in a case study can be the basis for organizing a literature review. This framework focuses on how the author(s) or the person(s) administering a study applied similar methods as another study. As a result, the types of literature in a literature review that applies the methodological framework tends to review similar materials. For example, if you reviewed methods used to treat post traumatic stress syndrome, the review would organize the studies by the methods used to treat the patients and not the order that the studies were published.

Note: After choosing the organizational framework for the literature review, it should be easier to write because you should have a clear idea of what sections you need to include in the paper. For example, a chronological review will have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review will have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

In some cases the literature does not quite fit the framework you have chosen. In this case, you should determine where it makes sense to place the literature and confirm this choice with your professor.

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Additional Guides & Reading Materials >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2022 2:41 PM
• URL: https://research.lesley.edu/LitReview

Moriarty Library

Porter Campus 1801 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 617-349-8070

Sherrill Library

South Campus 89 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-349-8850

Eugene McDermott Library

Literature review.

• Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Organizing the Literature Review
• Writing the Literature Review
• Examples of Literature Reviews

Organization

Organization of your Literature Review

What is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? What order should you present them?

Basic Outline of a Literature Review

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

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.

Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).

Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing the literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed ? ( " Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Organizing the Body

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

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

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

Chronological

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.

By publication

Order your sources chronologically by publication if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Another way to organize sources chronologically is to examine the sources under a trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Using this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.

More authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

( "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Other Sections to Include in a Literature Review

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

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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

( " Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

• << Previous: Collecting Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 12:28 PM
• URL: https://libguides.utdallas.edu/literature-review

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Organizing/Writing
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"

Consider Organization

Literature review synthesis matrix, composing your literature review, managing citations / zotero.

• 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

Presentation on Synthesizing a Literature Review

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

First, cover the basic categories Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. Introduction:  Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern. Body:  Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each). Conclusions/Recommendations:  Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed? Organizing the body Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario and then three typical ways of organizing the sources into a review: You've decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you've just finished reading  Moby Dick , and you wonder if that whale's portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 2020's. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 2021 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in  Moby Dick , so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel. Chronological If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (2021), and finally the biology articles (2000s) and the recent articles (last five years) on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus. By publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. By trend A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote more than a century apart.

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.

But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological

A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Once you've decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

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

Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.

History : The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.

Methods and/or Standards : The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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

(Adapted from  "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

This synthesis matrix in Excel can help you get a jumpstart on finding ways in which the literature differs and is the same.

• Synthesis Matrix

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Use a citation manager to manage citations from journals, books, documents, and internet sites.

A good one to use is Zotero. Instructions on using it can be found in the following guide:

• Zotero Guide

Content for this section of the guide was taken from  Literature Reviews from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , under the guidelines of their Creative Commons License.

• << Previous: Finding "The Literature"
• Next: APA Style >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Subject Guides

What is a literature review?

• Organization
• Getting Started
• Finding the Literature

A Process for Organizing Your Review of the Literature

Tools to help organize your literature review.

• Connect with Your Librarian
• More Information

Citation Management

• Zotero: A Beginner's Guide by Todd Quinn Last Updated Mar 29, 2024 21445 views this year
• Zotero v. EndNote v. Mendeley by Todd Quinn Last Updated Mar 13, 2023 498 views this year
• EndNote Software: Beginner's Guide by Todd Quinn Last Updated Jan 24, 2024 3812 views this year

More information

• Literature review assignments A video on how to organize literature reviews.
• Select  the most relevant material from your sources  With your research question in mind, read each of your sources and identify the material that is most relevant to that question. This might be material that answers the question directly, but it might also be material that helps explain why it’s important to ask the question or that is otherwise relevant to your question. When you pull this material from your source, you can extract it as a direct quotation, or you can paraphrase the passage or idea. (Make sure you enclose direct quotations in quotation marks!) A single source may have more than one idea relevant to your question.  
• Arrange  that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself Many writers put the material they have selected into a grid. They place each quotation or paraphrase in a cell in that grid. Arranging your selected material in a grid has two benefits: first, you can view your relevant material away from the source text (meaning you are now working with fewer words and pages!). Second, you can view all of the material that will go into your lit review in one place.  

Once you have created these groups of ideas, approaches, or themes, give each one a label. The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure.

Now that you have identified the topics you will discuss in your lit review, look them over as a whole. Do you see any gaps that you should fill by finding additional sources? If so, do that research and add those sources to your groupings.

Once you have an assertion for each of your groupings, put those assertions in the order that you want to use in the lit review. This may be the order that has the best logical flow, or the order that tells the story you want to tell in the lit review.

Source:  Organizing Literature Reviews: The Basics from George Mason University

• Bubbl.us Bubbl.us makes it easy to organize your ideas visually in a way that makes sense to you and others.
• Coggle Coggle is online software for creating and sharing mindmaps and flowcharts.
• Google Sheets Create a matrix with author names across the top (columns), themes on the left side (rows).
• Microsoft Excel Create a matrix with author names across the top (columns), themes on the left side (rows).
• Mind42 Mind42 is a free online mind mapping software. In short: Mind42 offers you a software that runs in your browser to create mind maps - a special form of a structured diagram to visually organize information.
• Popplet Mind maps, flow charts, timelines, story boards and more.
• Scapple Ever scribbled ideas on a piece of paper and drawn lines between related thoughts? Then you already know what Scapple does. It's a virtual sheet of paper that lets you make notes anywhere and connect them using lines or arrows.
• XMind The full-featured mind mapping and brainstorming app.

• << Previous: Finding the Literature
• Next: Connect with Your Librarian >>
• Last Updated: Aug 17, 2023 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/litreview

How to Do a Literature Review: Organization & Writing

• Introduction
• Where to Begin
• Organization & Writing

Preparing to Write

What are you writing?  A literature review is not a one-by-one summary of your sources, but a synthesis  or integration of them all. For a literature review, you want to focus on analyzing the sources you have examined from the point of view of  your thesis/hypothesis. Keep in mind that the purpose of analyzing your reviewed sources is to convince your reader that your thesis or hypothesis is a good one.

How are you writing it?  There are many ways to organize a literature review. You many want to group you sources in the form of a debate or compare and contrast, highlighting the similarities and differences between them. You could also decide to present your sources as they connect to the subtopics you establish as key to your thesis/hypothesis. Another possibility might be to discuss the sources in chronological order by their date of publication to show how a specific position or approach or concept important to your thesis/hypothesis may have come about.

On this page you will find a guide to the general structure of a literature review as well as suggestions for note-taking and outlining.

Parts of the Literature Review

The introduction

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature, i.e. testing the hypothesis of your research project against the available published research pertinent to it.
• State trends, points of agreement and disagreement in the sources you reviewed
• Decide what organizing principle you will use to present your sources: Will you group sources by concept, by your own subtopic, by trends, by shared methodologies, by schools of thought, by chronology? 
• Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits in your argument
• Make sure you discuss more than one source in each section of your literature review
• Provide the reader with strong "signal sentences at beginnings of paragraphs or "signposts" that make the overall topic of the paragraph clear 
• End each paragraph with a reflection on what the sources reviewed show in relation to your hypothesis or research focus.

The conclusion

• Articulate how your review of your sources sheds light on your hypothesis or research focus 
• Point to aspects of your research focus that are not covered in depth or at all in the sources you reviewed and merit more research

-Loosely adapted from the Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Outlining Your Literature Review

• What is your topic and why is it important?
• What is the thesis you want to establish or the proposal you want to lay out or the hypothesis you want to test?
• What is the range of sources you reviewed (publication dates, types of articles)?
• How does source #1 in relation to your main point #1?
• How does source #2 in relation to your main point #1 and in relation to source #1?
• How does source #3 in relation to your main point #1 and in relation to sources #1 & # 2?
• What does the research reviewed here show about your overall thesis, proposal, or hypothesis?
• What points or trends stood out to you most in reviewing the published research related to your topic and why?
• How did the research you reviewed help you shape, refine, revise, strengthen, justify your thesis, proposal, hypothesis?

Taking Notes: The Organizational Synthesis Chart

• Literature Review Note-Taker:The Synthesis Matrix

Remember that the literature review is about identifying patterns of connection in the published research on an issue or question. The following note-taking tool can help you visualize those patterns better. At the same time, this tool will help you translate the research into the terms of your own research project and facilitate your in-text citation when you begin to write. See below and download above. 

For more information on how synthesis works in writing a literature review, watch this excellent short video: Synthesis for Literature Reviews by USU Libraries.

• << Previous: Where to Begin
• Next: Resources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 4, 2021 10:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.mcny.edu/literaturereview

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

• What is a Literature Review?
• Developing a Research Question
• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search

Review Matrix

• Reference Management

Using a spreadsheet or table to organize the key elements (e.g. subjects, methodologies, results) of articles/books you plan to use in your literature review can be helpful. This is called a review matrix.

When you create a review matrix, the first few columns should include (1) the authors, title, journal, (2) publication year, and (3) purpose of the paper. The remaining columns should identify important aspects of each study such as methodology and findings.

Click on the image below to view a sample review matrix.

You can also download this template as a Microsoft Excel file .

The information on this page is from the book below. The 5th edition is available online through VCU Libraries.

• << Previous: Documenting Your Search
• Next: Reference Management >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-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
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• E-Collections
• Virtual Roundtables
• Author Videos
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• About The European Journal of Public Health
• About the European Public Health Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Explore Publishing with EJPH
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, conclusions, recommendations and limitations of the study, supplementary data, data availability.

• < Previous

A systematic review of literature examining the application of a social model of health and wellbeing

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rachel Rahman, Caitlin Reid, Philip Kloer, Anna Henchie, Andrew Thomas, Reyer Zwiggelaar, A systematic review of literature examining the application of a social model of health and wellbeing, European Journal of Public Health , Volume 34, Issue 3, June 2024, Pages 467–472, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae008

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Following years of sustained pressure on the UK health service, there is recognition amongst health professionals and stakeholders that current models of healthcare are likely to be inadequate going forward. Therefore, a fundamental review of existing social models of healthcare is needed to ascertain current thinking in this area, and whether there is a need to change perspective on current thinking.

Through a systematic research review, this paper seeks to address how previous literature has conceptualized a social model of healthcare and, how implementation of the models has been evaluated. Analysis and data were extracted from 222 publications and explored the country of origin, methodological approach, and the health and social care contexts which they were set.

The publications predominantly drawn from the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and Europe identified five themes namely: the lack of a clear and unified definition of a social model of health and wellbeing; the need to understand context; the need for cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach; measuring and evaluating the performance of a social model of health.

The review identified a need for a clear definition of a social model of health and wellbeing. Furthermore, consideration is needed on how a model integrates with current models and whether it will act as a descriptive framework or, will be developed into an operational model. The review highlights the importance of engagement with users and partner organizations in the co-creation of a model of healthcare.

Following years of sustained and increasing pressure brought about through inadequate planning and chronic under-resourcing including the unprecedented challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK NHS is at crisis point. 1 The incidents of chronic disease continue to increase alongside an ageing population who have more complex health and wellbeing needs, whilst recruitment and retention of staff continue to be insufficient to meet these increased demands. 1 Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has only served to exacerbate pressures, resulting in delays in; patient presentation, 2 poor public mental health 3 strain and burnout amongst workforce. 4 However, preceding the pandemic there was already recognition of a need for a change to the current biomedical model of care to better prevent and treat the needs of the population. 5

While it is recognized that demands on the healthcare system are increasing rapidly, the biomedical model used to deal with these issues (which is the current model of healthcare provision in the UK) has largely remained unchanged over the years. The biomedical model takes the perspective that ill-health stems from biological factors and operates on the theory that good health and wellbeing is merely the absence of illness. Application of the model therefore focuses treatment on the management of symptoms and cure of disease from a biological perspective. This suggests that the biomedical approach is mainly reactive in nature and whilst rapid advancements in technology such as diagnostics and robotics have significantly improved patient outcomes and identification of early onset of disease, it does not fully extend into managing the social determinants that can play an important role in the prevention of disease. Therefore, despite its contribution in advancing many areas of biological and health research, the biomedical model has come under increasing scrutiny. 6 This is in part due to the growing recognition of the impact of those wider social determinants on health, ill-health and wellbeing including physical, mental and social wellbeing which moves the focus beyond individual physical abilities or dysfunction. 7–9 In order to address these determinants, action needs to be taken through developing policies in a range of non-medical areas such as social, economic and environment so that they regulate the commercial and corporate determinants. In this sense, we can quickly see that the traditional biological model rapidly becomes inadequate. With the current model, health care and clinical staff can do little to affect these determinants and as such can do little to assist the individual patient or society. The efficiency and effectiveness of clinical work will undoubtedly improve if staff have the ability to observe and understand the wider social determinants and consequences of the individual patients’ condition. Therefore, in order to provide a basis for understanding the determinants of disease and arriving at rational treatments and patterns of health care, a medical model must also take into account the patient, the social context in which they live, and a system devised by society to deal with the disruptive effects of illness, that is, the physician’s role and that of the health care system. Models such as Engel’s biopsychosocial model, 9 , 10 the social model of disability, social–ecological models of health 10 , 11 including the World Health Organisation’s framework for action on social determinants of health 8 , 9 are all proposed as attempting to integrate these wider social determinants.

However, the ability of health systems to effectively transition away from a dominant biomedical model to the adoption of a social model of health and care have yet to be fully developed. Responsibility for taking action on these social determinants will need to come from other sectors and policy areas and so future health policy will need to evolve into a more comprehensive and holistic social model of health and wellbeing. Wales’ flagship Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 12 for instance outlines ways of working towards sustainable development and includes the need to collaborate with society and communities in developing and achieving wellbeing goals. However, developing and implementing an effective operational model that allows multi-stakeholder integration will prove far more difficult to achieve than creating the polices. Furthermore, if the implementation of a robust model of social health is achievable, it’s efficiency, effectiveness and ability to deliver has yet to be proven. Therefore, any future model will need to extend past its conceptual development and provide an ability to manage the complex interactions that will exist between the stakeholders and polices.

Therefore, the use of the term ‘model’ poses its own challenges and debates. Different disciplines attribute differing parameters to what constitutes a model and this in turn may influence the interpretations or expectations surrounding what a model should comprise of or deliver. 13 According to numerous authors, a model has no ontological category and as such anything from physical entities, theoretical concepts, descriptive frameworks or equations can feasibly be considered a model. 14 It appears therefore, that much discussion has focussed on the move towards a ‘descriptive’ Social Model of Health and Wellbeing in an attempt to view health more holistically and identify a wider range of determinants that can impact on the health of the population. However, in defining an operational social model of health that can facilitate organizational change, there may be a need to consider a more systems- or process-based approach.

As a result, this review seeks to systematically explore the academic literature in order to better understand how a social model of health and wellbeing is conceptualized, implemented, operationalized and evaluated in health and social care.

The review seeks to address the research questions:

How is ‘a social model of health and wellbeing’ conceptualized?

How have social models of health and wellbeing been implemented and evaluated?

A systematic search of the literature was carried out between 6 January 2022 and 20 January 2022. Using the search terms shown in table 1 , a systematic search was carried out using online databases PsycINFO, ASSIA, IBSS, Medline, Web of Science, CINHAL and SCOPUS. English language and peer-reviewed journals were selected as limiters.

Search terms

Selection and extraction criteria

The search strategy considered research that explicitly included, framed, or adopted a ‘social model of health and wellbeing’. Each paper was checked for relevance and screened. The authors reviewed the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) method using the updated guidelines from 2020. 15   Figure 1 represents the process followed.

PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction and analysis

A systematic search of the literature identified 222 eligible papers for inclusion in the final review. A data extraction table was used to extract information regarding location of the research, type of paper (e.g. review, empirical), service of interest and key findings. Quantitative studies were explored with a view to conducting a quantitative meta-analysis; however, given the disparate nature of the outcome measures, and research designs, this was deemed unfeasible. All included papers were coded using NVivo software with the identified research questions in mind, and re-analysed using Thematic Analysis 16 to explore common themes of relevance.

The majority of papers were from the USA (34%), with the UK (28%), Australia (16%), Canada (6%) and wider Europe (10%) also contributing to the field. The ‘other’ category (6%) was made up of single papers from other countries. Papers ranged in date from 1983 to 2021 with no noticeable temporal patterns in country of origin, health context or model definition. However, the volume of papers published relating to the social model for healthcare in each decade increased significantly, thus suggesting the increasing research interest towards the social model of healthcare. Table 2 shows the number of publications per decade that were identified from this study.

Publications identifying social models of healthcare.

Most of the papers were narrative reviews ( n  = 90) with a smaller number of systematic reviews ( n  = 9) and empirical research studies including qualitative ( n  = 47), quantitative ( n  = 39) and mixed methods ( n  = 14) research. The remaining papers ( n  = 23) comprised small samples of, for example, clinical commentaries, cost effectiveness analysis, discussion papers and impact assessment development papers. The qualitative meta-analysis identified five overarching themes in relation to the research questions, some with underlying sub-themes, which are outlined in figure 2 .

Overview of meta-synthesis themes.

The lack of a clear and unified definition of a social model of health and wellbeing

There was common recognition amongst the papers that a key aim of applying a social model of health and wellbeing was to better address the social determinants of health. Papers identified and reviewed relevant frameworks and models, which they later used to conceptualize or frame their approach when attempting to apply a social model of health. Amongst the most commonly referenced was the WHO’s framework. 17 Engel’s biopsychosocial model 9 which was referred to as a seminal framework by many of the researchers. However, once criticism of the biopsychosocial model was its inability to fully address social needs. As a result, a number of papers reported the development of new or enhanced models that used the biopsychosocial model as their underpinning ‘social model’ 18 , 19 but then extended their work by including a wider set of social elements in their resulting models. 20 The Social ecological model, 11 the Society-Behaviour-Biology Nexus, 21 and the Environmental Affordances Model are such examples. 22 Further examples of ‘Social Models’ included the Model of Social Determinants of Health 23 which framed specific determinants of interest (namely social gradient, stress, early life, social exclusion, work, unemployment, social support, addiction, food and transport). Similarly, Dahlgren and Whitehead’s ‘social model’ 10 illustrates social determinants via a range of influential factors from the individual to the wider cultural and socioeconomic influences. However, none of these papers formally developed a working ‘definition’ of a social model of health and wellbeing, instead applying guiding principles and philosophies associated with a social model to their discussions or interventions. 24 , 25

The need to understand context

Numerous articles highlight that in order to move towards a social model of health and wellbeing, it is important to understand the context of the environment in which the model will need to operate. This includes balancing the needs of the individual with the resulting model to have been co-created, developed and implemented within the community whilst ensuring that the complexity of interaction between the social determinants of health and their influence on health and wellbeing outcomes are delivered effectively and efficiently.

The literature identified the complex multi-disciplinary nature of a variety of conditions or situations involving medical care. These included issues such as, but not exclusively, chronic pain, 26 cancer, 27 older adult care 28 and dementia, 29 thus indicating the complex arrangement of medical issues that a model will need to address and, where many authors acknowledged that the frequently used biomedical models failed to fully capture the holistic nature and need of patients. Papers outlined some of the key social determinants of health affecting the specific population of interest in their own context, highlighting the interactions between wider socioeconomic and cultural factors such as poverty, housing, isolation and transport and health and wellbeing outcomes. Interventions that had successfully addressed individual needs and successful embedded services in communities reported improved outcomes for end users and staff in the form of empowerment, agency, education and belonging. 30 There was also recognition that the transition to more community-based care could be challenging for health and social care providers who were having to work outside of their traditional models of care and accept a certain level of risk.

The need for cultural change

A number of papers referred to the need for a ‘culture change’ or ‘cultural shift’ in order to move towards a social model of health and wellbeing. Papers identified how ‘culture change models’ were implemented as a way of adapting to a social model. It was recognized that for culture change models to be effective, staff and the general public needed to be fully engaged with the entire move towards a social model, informing and shaping the mechanisms for the cultural shift as well as the application of the model itself.

Integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach

The importance of integration and collaboration between health professionals, (which includes public, private and third sector organizations), services users and patients were emphasized in the ambition to achieve best practice when applying a social model of health and wellbeing. Papers identified the reported benefits of improved collaboration between, and integration of services which included improved continuity of care throughout complex pathways, 31 improved return to home or other setting on discharge, 25 and social connectedness. 32 Numerous papers discussed the importance of multi-disciplinary teams who were able to support individuals beyond the medicalized model.

A number of papers suggested specific professional roles or structures that would be ideal to act as champions or integrators of collaborative services and communities. 25 , 33 These could act as a link between secondary, primary and community level care helping to identify patient needs and supporting the integration of relevant services.

Measuring and evaluating a social model of health

Individual papers applying and evaluating interventions based on a social model used a variety of methods to evaluate success. Amongst these, some of the most common outcome measures included; general self-report measures of outcomes such as mental health and perceptions of safety, 34 wellbeing, 35 life satisfaction and health social networks and support 19 Some included condition specific self-report outcomes relevant to the condition in question (e.g. pregnancy, anxiety) and pain inventories. 36 Other papers considered the in-depth experiences of users or service implementers through qualitative techniques such as in-person interviews. 37 , 38

However, the complexity of developing effective methods to evaluate social models of health were recognized. The need to consider the complex interactions between social determinants, and health, wellbeing, economic and societal outcomes posed particular challenges in developing consistency across evaluations that would enable a conclusive evaluation of the benefits of social models to wider health systems and societal health. Some criticized the over-reliance of quantitative and evidence-based practice methods of evaluation highlighting how these could fail to fully capture the complexity of human behaviour and the manner in which their lives could be affected.

The aim of this systematic review was to better understand how a social model of health and wellbeing is conceptualized, implemented and evaluated in health and social care. The review sought to address the research questions identified in the ‘Introduction’ section of this paper.

With regards to the conceptualization of a social model of health and wellbeing, analysis of the literature suggests that whilst the ethos, values and aspirations of achieving a unified model appears to have consensus. However, a fundamental weakness exists in that there is no single unified definition or operational model of a social model of health and wellbeing applied to the health and social care sector. The decision about how best to conceptualize a ‘social model’ is important both in terms of its operational value but also the implication of the associated semantics. However, without a single or unified definition then implementation or further, operationalization of any model will be almost impossible to develop. Furthermore, use of the term ‘social model’ arguably loses site of the biological factors that are clearly relevant in many elements of clinical medicine. Furthermore, there is no clarification in the literature about what would ‘not’ be considered a social model of health and wellbeing, potentially leading to confusion within health and social care sectors when addressing their wider social remit. This raises questions and requires decisions about whether implementation of a social model of health and wellbeing will need to work alongside or replace the existing biomedical approach.

Authors have advocated that a social model provides a way of ‘thinking’ or articulating an organization’s values and culture. 24 Common elements of the values associated with a social model amongst the papers reviewed included recognition and awareness of the social determinants of health, increased focus on preventative rather than reactive care, and similarly the importance of quality of ‘life’ as opposed to a focus on quality of ‘care’. However, whilst this approach enables individual services to consider how well their own practices align with a social model, the authors suggest that this does not provide large organizations such as the NHS, with multifaceted services and complex internal and external connections and networks, sufficient guidance to enable large scale evaluation or transition to a widespread operational model of a social model of health and wellbeing. This raises questions about what the model should be: whether its function is to support communication of a complex ethos to encourage reflection and engagement of its staff and end users, or to develop the current illustrative framework into a predictive model that can be utilized as an evaluative tool to inform and measure the success of widespread systems change.

Regarding the potential implementation of a future social model of health and wellbeing, none of the papers evaluated the complex widespread organizational implementation of a social model, instead focusing on specific organizational contexts of services such as long-term care in care homes, etc. Despite this, common elements of successful implementation did emerge from the synthesis. This included the need to wholeheartedly engage and be inclusive of end users in policy and practice change to fully understand the complexity of their social worlds and to ensure that changes to practice and policy were ‘developed with’, as opposed to ‘create for’, the wider public. This also involved ensuring that health, social care and wider multi-disciplinary teams were actively included in the process of culture change from an early stage.

Implications for future research

The analysis identifies that a significant change of mindset and removal of perceived and actual hierarchical structures (that are historically embedded in health and social care structures) amongst both staff and public is needed although, eradicating socially embedded hierarchies will pose significant challenges in practice. Furthermore, the study revealed that many of the models proposed were conceptually underdeveloped and lacked the capability to be operationalized which in turn compromised their ability to be empirically tested. Therefore, in order that a future ‘implementable and operational’ model of social care and wellbeing can be created, further research into organizational behaviours, organizational learning and stakeholder theory (amongst others) applied to the social care and health environment is needed.

Towards defining a social model of health and wellbeing

In attempting to conceptualize a definition for a social model of health and wellbeing, it is important to note that the model needs to be sufficiently broad in scope in order to include the prevailing biomedical while also including the need to draw in the social determinants that provide a view and future trajectory towards social health and wellbeing. Therefore, the authors suggest that the ‘preventative’ approach brought by the improvements in the social health determinants (social, cultural, political, environmental ) need to be balanced effectively with the ‘remedial/preventative’ focus of the biomedical model (and the associated advancements in diagnostics, technology, vaccines, etc), ensuring that a future model drives cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach whilst ensuring engagement with citizens, users, multi-disciplinary teams and partner organizations to ensure that transition towards a social model of health and wellbeing is undertaken.

Through a comprehensive literature analysis, this paper has provided evidence that advocates a move towards a social model of health and wellbeing. However, the study has predominantly considered mainly literature from the USA, UK, Canada and Australia and therefore is limited in scope at this stage. The authors are aware of the need to consider research undertaken in non-English speaking countries where a considerable body of knowledge also exists and which will add to further discussion about how that work dovetails into this body of literature and, how it aligns with the biomedical perspective. There is a need for complex organizations such as the NHS and allied organizations to agree a working definition of their model of health and wellbeing, whether that be a social model of health and wellbeing, a biopsychosocial model, a combined model, or indeed a new or revised perspective. 39

One limitation seen of the models within this study is that at a systems level, most models were conceptual models that characterized current systems or conditions and interventions to the current system that result in localized improvements in systems’ performance. However, for meaningful change to occur, a ‘future state’ model may need to focus on a behavioural systems approach allowing modelling of the complete system to take place in order to understand how the elements within the model 40 behave under different external conditions and how these behaviours affect overall system performance.

Furthermore, considerable work will be required to engage on a more equal footing with the public, health and social care staff as well as wider supporting organizations in developing workable principles and processes that fully embrace the equality of a social model and challenging the ‘power’ imbalances of the current biomedical model.

Supplementary data are available at EURPUB online.

This research was funded/commissioned by Hywel Dda University Health Board. The research was funded in two phases.

Conflicts of interest: None declared.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Data Archive at Aberystwyth University and have been included in the supplementary file attached to this submission. A full table of references for studies included in the review will be provided as a supplementary document. The references below refer to citations in the report which are in addition to the included studies of the synthesis.

The review identified five themes namely: the lack of a clear definition of a social model of health and wellbeing; the need to understand context; the need for cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach; measuring and evaluating the performance of a social model of health.

The review identified a need for organizations to decide on how a social model is to be defined especially at the interfaces between partner organizations and communities.

The implications for public policy in this paper highlights the importance of engagement with citizens, users, multi-disciplinary teams and partner organizations to ensure that transition towards a social model of health and wellbeing is undertaken with holistic needs as a central value.

British Medical Association (ND). An NHS under pressure. Accessed via An NHS under pressure (bma.org.uk). https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/an-nhs-under-pressure (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Nuffield Trust ( 2022 ). NHS performance summary. Accessed via NHS performance summary | The Nuffield Trust. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/nhs-performance-summary-january-february-2022 (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

NHS confederation , ( 2022 ) Running hot: The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mental health services. Accessed via Running hot | NHS Confederation. https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/running-hot (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Gemine R , Davies GR , Tarrant S , et al.    Factors associated with work-related burnout in NHS staff during COVID-19: a cross-sectional mixed methods study . BMJ Open   2021 ; 11 : e042591 .

Google Scholar

Iacobucci G.   Medical models of care needs updating say experts . BMJ   2018 ; 360 : K1034 .

Podgorski CA , Anderson SD , Parmar J.   A biopsychosocial-ecological framework for family-framed dementia care . Front Psychiatry   2021 ; 12 : 744806 .

Marmot M.   Social determinants of health inequalities . Lancet   2005 ; 365 : 1099 – 104 .

World Health Organisation ( 1946 ) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference . New York: World Health Organization, 19–22 June, 1946.

World Health Organisation ( 2010 ). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Accessed via A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health (who.int) (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Engel G.   The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine . Science   1977 ; 196 : 129 – 36 .

Dahlgren G , Whitehead M. ( 2006 ). European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up part 2. Studies on Social Economic Determinants of Population Health, 1–105. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103824/E89384.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

McLeroy KR , Bibeau D , Steckler A , Glanz K.   An ecological perspective on health promotion programs . Health Educ Q   1988 ; 15 : 351 – 77 .

Welsh Government , Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-10/well-being-future-generations-wales-act-2015-the-essentials-2021.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( 2006 , 2020). Models in Science. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/ (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

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

Braun V , Clarke V.   Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qual Res Psychol   2006 ; 3 : 77 – 101 .

Thomas J , Harden A.   Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Med Res Methodol   2008 ; 8 : 45 .

Solar O , Irwin A. ( 2016 ) “A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2010”. (Social determinants of health discussion paper 2 (policy and practice)). Available at: http://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/ConceptualframeworkforactiononSDH_eng.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

Farre A , Rapley T.   The new old (and old new) medical model: four decades navigating the biomedical and psychosocial understandings of health and illness . Healthcare   2017 ; 5 : 88 .

Smedema SM.   Evaluation of a concentric biopsychosocial model of well-being in persons with spinal cord injuries . Rehabil Psychol   2017 ; 62 : 186 – 97 . PMID: 28569533.

Robles B , Kuo T , Thomas Tobin CS.   What are the relationships between psychosocial community characteristics and dietary behaviors in a racially/ethnically diverse urban population in Los Angeles county? . Int J Environ Res Public Health   2021 ; 18 : 9868 .

Glass TA , McAtee MJ.   Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: extending horizons, envisioning the future . Soc Sci Med   2006 ; 62 : 1650 – 71 .

Mezuk B , Abdou CM , Hudson D , et al.    "White Box" epidemiology and the social neuroscience of health behaviors: the environmental affordances model . Soc Ment Health   2013 ; 3 : 10.1177/2156869313480892

Wilkinson RG , Marmot M , editors. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts . Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization , 2003 .

Google Preview

Mannion R , Davies H.   Understanding organisational culture for healthcare quality improvement . BMJ   2018 ; 363 : k4907 .

Blount A , Bayona J.   Toward a system of integrated primary care . Fam Syst Health   1994 ; 12 : 171 – 82 .

Berger MY , Gieteling MJ , Benninga MA.   Chronic abdominal pain in children . BMJ   2007 ; 334 : 997 – 1002 . PMID: 17494020; PMCID: PMC1867894.

Berríos-Rivera R , Rivero-Vergne A , Romero I.   The pediatric cancer hospitalization experience: reality co-constructed . J Pediatr Oncol Nurs   2008 ; 25 : 340 – 53 .

Doty MM , Koren MJ , Sturla EL. ( 2008 ). Culture change in nursing homes: How far have we come? Findings from the Commonwealth Fund 2007 National Survey. The Commonwealth Fund, 91. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/May/Culture-Change-in-NursingHomes-How-Far-Have-We-Come-Findings-FromThe-Commonwealth-Fund-2007-Nati.aspx (16 October 2023, date last accessed).

Robinson L , Tang E , Taylor J.   Dementia: timely diagnosis and early intervention . BMJ   2015 ; 350 : h3029 .

Baxter S , Johnson M , Chambers D , et al.    Understanding new models of integrated care in developed countries: a systematic review . Health Serv Deliv Res   2018 ; 6 : 1 .

Seys D , Panella M , VanZelm R , et al.    Care pathways are complex interventions in complex systems: new European Pathway Association framework . Int J Care Coord   2019 ; 22 : 5 – 9 .

Agarwal G , Brydges M.   Effects of a community health promotion program on social factors in a vulnerable older adult population residing in social housing” . BMC Geriatr   2018 ; 18 : 95 . PMID: 29661136; PMCID: PMC5902999.

Franklin CM , Bernhardt JM , Lopez RP , et al.    Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: an integrative review . Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol   2015 ; 2 : 2333392815573312 . PMID: 28462254; PMCID: PMC5266454.

Gagné T , Henderson C , McMunn A.   Is the self-reporting of mental health problems sensitive to public stigma towards mental illness? A comparison of time trends across English regions (2009-19) . Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol   2023 ; 58 : 671 – 80 . PMID: 36473961; PMCID: PMC9735159.

Geyh S , Nick E , Stirnimann D , et al.    Biopsychosocial outcomes in individuals with and without spinal cord injury: a Swiss comparative study . Spinal Cord   2012 ; 50 : 614 – 22 .

Davies C , Knuiman M , Rosenberg M.   The art of being mentally healthy: a study to quantify the relationship between recreational arts engagement and mental well-being in the general population . BMC Public Health   2016 ; 16 : 15 . PMID: 26733272; PMCID: PMC4702355.

Duberstein Z , Brunner J , Panisch L , et al.    The biopsychosocial model and perinatal health care: determinants of perinatal care in a community sample . Front Psychiatry   2021 ; 12 : 746803 .

The King’s Fund , ( 2021 ). Health inequalities in a nutshell. Accessed via Health inequalities in a nutshell | The King's Fund (kingsfund.org.uk) https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-inequalities (23 October 2023, date last accessed)

Blount A.   Integrated primary care: organizing the evidence . Fam Syst Health   2003 ; 21 : 121 – 33 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Contact EUPHA
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-360X
• Print ISSN 1101-1262
• Copyright © 2024 European Public Health Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab (the Purdue OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The On-Campus and Online versions of Purdue OWL assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue OWL serves the Purdue West Lafayette and Indianapolis campuses and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

Bibliometric Analysis and Review of World Trade Organization Research: Suggesting Future Avenues using WOS Database

• Published: 13 June 2024

Cite this article

• Ramphul Ohlan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-2631 1 ,
• Anshu Ohlan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0489-3793 2 ,
• Sudesh Chhikara 3 &
• Tejaswini Singh 4  

26 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The study analyzes the intellectual structure of World Trade Organization (WTO) research, employing a bibliometric approach. The bibliographic information of 7203 publications in the WTO field published in the Web of Science Core Collection indexed journals over 1995–2023 was analyzed. The results indicate that the research on WTO has grown faster than that of regional trade agreements and the overall international business field during recent decades. It may partially be due to an increase in the number of active proceedings in the WTO dispute settlement body. The European countries are the major contributors to WTO research. The USA is the most productive and influential country, with 2070 WTO-related publications and an h-index of 100. In addition, the authors affiliated with institutions located in the USA have established strong research collaborations with those from China, England, Switzerland, and Canada. However, the contribution from China has grown faster in recent years. Global politics and international trade law have become highly impactful themes. As for future research avenues, the focus of this research corpus has gradually shifted from the Doha development round to a review of the trade dispute settlement mechanism and amendments to WTO laws for ensuring transparency and environmental sustainability.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

Not Applicable.

Ali, A., Ramakrishnan, S., Faisal, F., Akram, T., Salam, S., & Rahman, S. U. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of finance and natural resources: Past trend, current development, and future prospects. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25 (11), 13035–13064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02602-1

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, K. (2022). Trade-related food policies in a more volatile climate and trade environment. Food Policy, 109 , 102253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102253

Anderson, K., Martin, W., & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. (2006). Doha merchandise trade reform: What is at stake for developing countries? The World Bank Economic Review, 20 (2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813274730_0010

Athukorala, P. C., & Jayasuriya, S. (2003). Food safety issues, trade and WTO rules: A developing country perspective. World Economy, 26 (9), 1395–1416. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9701.2003.00576.x

Azaria, D. (2022). Trade countermeasures for breaches of international law outside the WTO. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 71 (2), 389–423. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000057

Bagwell, K., & Staiger, R. W. (1997). Multilateral tariff cooperation during the formation of customs unions. Journal of International Economics, 42 (1–2), 91–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(96)01443-2

Bagwell, K., & Staiger, R. W. (1999). An economic theory of GATT. American Economic Review, 89 (1), 215–248. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.215

Bagwell, K., & Staiger, R. W. (2004). The economics of the world trading system . MIT Press.

Barham, E. (2003). Translating terroir: The global challenge of French AOC labeling. Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00052-9

Bettcher, D. W., Yach, D., & Guindon, G. E. (2000). Global trade and health: key linkages and future challenges. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 78 , 521–534. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/268112

Bloom, N., Draca, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. The Review of Economic Studies, 83 (1), 87–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdv039

Bown, C. P. (2017). Mega-regional trade agreements and the future of the WTO. Global Policy, 8 (1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12391

Brandt, L., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Creative accounting or creative destruction? Firm-level productivity growth in Chinese manufacturing. Journal of Development Economics, 97 (2), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.02.002

Büthe, T., & Milner, H. V. (2008). The politics of foreign direct investment into developing countries: Increasing FDI through international trade agreements? American Journal of Political Science, 52 (4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00340.x

Cardwell, R., & Ghazalian, P. L. (2020). COVID-19 and international food assistance: Policy proposals to keep food flowing. World Development, 135 , 105059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105059

Cha, H., Kotabe, M., & Wu, J. (2023). Reshaping internationalization strategy and control for Global E-Commerce and digital transactions: A hayekian perspective. Management International Review, 63 (1), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-022-00494-x

Chen, C. J. (2022). Current developments of fisheries subsidies regulations after the failure of WTO Doha round negotiations with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy , 17 (1), 41–84. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4071950

Chu, C. C., & Lee, P. C. (2018). Paris needs Geneva, and vice versa. Global Policy, 9 (4), 570–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12584

Claussen, K. (2022). Next-generation agreements and the WTO. World Trade Review, 21 (3), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745622000131

Davey, W. J. (2022). WTO dispute settlement: Crown jewel or costume jewelry? World Trade Review, 21 (3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745622000106

De Bièvre, D., & Dür, A. (2005). Constituency interests and delegation in European and American trade policy. Comparative Political Studies, 38 (10), 1271–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005277578

De Bièvre, D., Espa, I., & Poletti, A. (2017). No iceberg in sight: On the absence of WTO disputes challenging fossil fuel subsidies. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17 (3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9362-0

De la Vega Hernández, I. M., Urdaneta, A. S., & Carayannis, E. (2022). Global bibliometric mapping of the frontier of knowledge in the field of artificial intelligence for the period 1990–2019. Artificial Intelligence Review , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10206-4

Dhingra, S., & Meyer, T. (2021). Leveling the playing field: Industrial policy and export-contingent subsidies in India-export related measures. World Trade Review, 20 (4), 606–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474562100032X

Estrada, M. A. R., & Koutronas, E. (2022). The impact of the Russian aggression against Ukraine on the Russia-EU trade. Journal of Policy Modeling, 44 (3), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.06.004

Fathi, M., Peiravian, F., & Yousefi, N. (2021). Impact of the trade-related aspect of intellectual property rights agreement on pharmaceutical industry in developing countries: A scoping review. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research: IJPR, 20 (4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0528-0

Fiorini, M., Hoekman, B., Mavroidis, P. C., Nelson, D., & Wolfe, R. (2021). Stakeholder preferences and priorities for the next WTO director general. Global Policy, 12 , 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12926

Gabor, E., & Sauvat, K. P. (2021). Facilitating sustainable FDI for sustainable development in a WTO investment facilitation framework: Four concrete proposals. Journal of World Trade , 55 (2), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2021010

Gallagher, K. P. (2007). Understanding developing country resistance to the Doha Round. Review of International Political Economy, 15 (1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290701751308

García-Lillo, F., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Úbeda-García, M. (2019). Identifying the ‘knowledge base’or ‘intellectual structure’of research on international business, 2000–2015: A citation/co-citation analysis of JIBS. International Business Review, 28 (4), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.02.001

Gnangnon, S. K. (2017). Impact of trade facilitation reforms on tax revenue. Journal of Economic Studies, 44 (5), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-03-2016-0054

Grosse, R., Gamso, J., & Nelson, R. C. (2021). China’s rise, world order, and the implications for international business. Management International Review, 61 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-020-00433-8

Guo, Y., Jasovska, P., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2018). Global mobility of professionals and the transfer of tacit knowledge in multinational service firms. Journal of Knowledge Management., 24 (3), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2017-0399

Hartman, S. W. (2013). The WTO, the Doha Round Impasse, PTAs, and FTAs/RTAs. The International Trade Journal, 27 (5), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853908.2013.827903

Helfer, L.R. & Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal . 107 (2), 273–391. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/9054

Hillberry, R., & Zurita, C. (2022). Commitment behaviour in the world trade organization’s trade facilitation agreement. The World Economy, 45 (1), 36–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13165

Hoekman, B., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2021). WTO reform: Back to the past to build for the future. Global Policy, 12 , 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12924

Hopewell, K. (2021). Trump & trade: The crisis in the multilateral trading system. New Political Economy, 26 (2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020.1841135

Kerr, W. A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and agriculture: Short-and long-run implications for international trade relations. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68 (2), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12230

Kim, S. E., Urpelainen, J., & Yang, J. (2019). Environmental effects of GATT/WTO membership: An empirical evaluation. International Interactions, 45 (5), 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2019.1632305

Koopman, R., Hancock, J., Piermartini, R., & Bekkers, E. (2020). The value of the WTO. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42 (4), 829–849.

Krämer, T., Momeni, F., & Mayr, P. (2017). Coverage of author identifiers in Web of Science and Scopus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01319. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.01319

Kromah, A. Z., & Bangura, K. Z. (2022). The WTO’s fisheries subsidies agreement: What’s new and what’s next? Global Trade and Customs Journal , 17 (10), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022061

Kucheriava, Y. (2022). Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: A WTO perspective. Global Trade and Customs Journal , 17 (10), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022060

Kuenzel, D. J. (2017). WTO dispute determinants. European Economic Review, 91 , 157–179.

Li, M., Du, W., & Wang, Z. (2023). Export globalization and pollution localization: Multivariate heterogeneous data based on Chinese enterprises. Energy Reports, 9 , 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.203

Li, X., & Zhang, X. (2022). Is the WTO dispute settlement system a disaster for the US? An evaluation of US–China WTO disputes. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 27 , 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-021-09776-x

Li, Y., Yang, M., & Zhu, L. (2021). FDI, export sophistication, and quality upgrading: Evidence from China’s WTO accession. Japan and the World Economy, 59 , 101086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2021.101086

Liu, W. (2021). Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172 , 121023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121023

Marceau, G. (1995). Transition from GATT to WTO: A most pragmatic operation.  Journal of World Trade, 29 (4), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad1995027

Mavroidis, P. C. (2013). Driftin’ too far from shore–Why the test for compliance with the TBT agreement developed by the WTO appellate body is wrong, and what should the AB have done instead. World Trade Review, 12 (3), 509–531.

Mayr, S., Hollaus, B., & Madner, V. (2021). Palm oil, the RED II and WTO law: EU sustainable biofuel policy tangled up in green? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 30 (2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12386

Mermelstein, S., & Stevens, H. (2021). TRIPS to where? A narrative review of the empirical literature on intellectual property licensing models to promote global diffusion of essential medicines. Pharmaceutics, 14 (1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14010048

Mrázová, M., Vines, D., & Zissimos, B. (2013). Is the GATT/WTO’s Article XXIV bad? Journal of International Economics, 89 (1), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.07.007

Mu, D., Ren, H., & Wang, C. (2021). A literature review of taxes in cross-border supply chain modeling: Themes, tax types and new trade-offs. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17 (1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer17010002

Ohlan, R. (2010). WTO and Indian agriculture . Global Research Publications.

Google Scholar  

Ohlan, R., & Ohlan, A. (2022). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis and visualization of smart home research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 184 , 121975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121975

Ohlan, R., & Ohlan, A. (2023). Religious tourism scholarship: Current state and future research directions. Journal of Islamic Marketing . https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-05-2023-0152

Okolo, C. V., Wen, J., & Kolani, K. (2023). Research assessment on the extreme social events in Africa—Evidence from a bibliometric analysis using web of science and citespace. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01553-w

Paarlberg, R. (1997). Agricultural policy reform and the Uruguay round: Synergistic linkage in a two-level game? International Organization, 51 (3), 413–444. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550410

Palmeter, D., & Mavroidis, P. C. (1998). The WTO legal system: Sources of law. American Journal of International Law, 92 (3), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2997915

Paul, J., Alhassan, I., Binsaif, N., & Singh, P. (2023). Digital entrepreneurship research: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 156 , 113507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113507

Pauwelyn, J. (2020). Export restrictions in times of pandemic: Options and limits under international trade agreements. Journal of World Trade, 54 (5), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3579965

Petersmann, E. U. (2004). The ‘Human Rights Approach’ advocated by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the International Labour Organization: Is it relevant for WTO Law and Policy? Journal of International Economic Law, 7 (3), 605–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/7.3.605

Pomfret, R. (2021). ‘Regionalism’ and the global trade system. The World Economy, 44 (9), 2496–2514.

Rahman, S. U., Faisal, F., & Ali, A. (2022). Financial development and shadow economy: A bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database (1985–2021). Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00980-5

Ripsman, N. M. (2021). Globalization, deglobalization and great power politics. International Affairs, 97 (5), 1317–1333. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab091

Rose, A. K. (2004). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? American Economic Review, 94 (1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282804322970724

Shih, Y. Y., & Fang, K. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study Internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 14 (3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410542643

Simo, R. Y. (2020). Trade in services in the African continental free trade area: Prospects, challenges and WTO compatibility. Journal of International Economic Law, 23 (1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz031

Smith, R. D., Correa, C., & Oh, C. (2009). Trade, TRIPS, and pharmaceuticals. The Lancet, 373 (9664), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61779-1

Steinberg, R. H. (2004). Judicial lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, constitutional, and political constraints. American Journal of International Law, 98 (2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/3176728

Subramanian, A., & Wei, S. J. (2007). The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 72 (1), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.07.007

Tenni, B., Moir, H. V., Townsend, B., Kilic, B., Farrell, A. M., Keegel, T., & Gleeson, D. (2022). What is the impact of intellectual property rules on access to medicines? A systematic review. Globalization and Health, 18 (1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-022-00826-4

Trachtman, J. P., & Moremen, P. M. (2003). Costs and benefits of private participation in WTO dispute settlement: Whose right is it anyway.  Harvard International Law Journal, 44 (1), 221–250.

Van Damme, I. (2023). 25 years of law and practice at the WTO: Did the appellate body dig its own grave? Journal of International Economic Law, 26 (1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac067

Wade, R. H. (2003). What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of ‘development space.’ Review of International Political Economy, 10 (4), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290310001601902

Yamabhai, I., & Smith, R. D. (2012). A review of the health and economic implications of patent protection, with a specific focus on Thailand. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-10-24

Zarocostas, J. (2021). New WTO leader faces COVID-19 challenges. The Lancet, 397 (10276), 782. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00507-9

Zeng, K., Sebold, K., & Lu, Y. (2020). Global value chains and corporate lobbying for trade liberalization. The Review of International Organizations, 15 (2), 409–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9337-0

Zepeda, C., Salman, M., Thiermann, A., Kellar, J., Rojas, H., & Willeberg, P. (2005). The role of veterinary epidemiology and veterinary services in complying with the World Trade Organization SPS agreement. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 67 (2–3), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.11.005

Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123 (1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: Drivers and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (5), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Geng, Y. (2005). Green supply chain management in China: Pressures, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25 (5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510593148

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Management Studies and Research, Maharshi Dayanand University, 124001, Rohtak, Haryana, India

Ramphul Ohlan

Department of Mathematics, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, India

Anshu Ohlan

University School of Management, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India

Sudesh Chhikara

Department of Commerce, Janki Devi Memorial College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Tejaswini Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramphul Ohlan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ohlan, R., Ohlan, A., Chhikara, S. et al. Bibliometric Analysis and Review of World Trade Organization Research: Suggesting Future Avenues using WOS Database. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02134-1

Download citation

Received : 06 February 2023

Accepted : 03 June 2024

Published : 13 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02134-1

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

• Dispute settlement body
• International business law
• Content analysis
• Network analysis
• Web of Science Core Collection
• Field weighted citation impact

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Advanced Search

Multivocal Literature Review on DevOps Critical Success Factors

Software Engineering, LUT University, Finland

Department Software Engineering, LUT University, Finland

New Citation Alert added!

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

• Publisher Site

EASE '24: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

DevOps is a methodology that seeks to unify development and operations teams in organizations, aiming to facilitate faster software delivery and promote collaboration to build a positive company culture. Our research aims to investigate the current state-of-the-art of DevOps, align academic research with industry practices, and identify critical success factors. We conducted a comprehensive literature review using a variety of databases and search engines, which revealed that several factors are essential to the success of DevOps, including DevOps culture, automation processes, continuous integration, and deployment, monitoring, and feedback, standardization with tools, team leadership, and DecSecOps for security issues. While DevOps has gained significant attention, it remains essential to understand practitioners’ perspectives. Our research has the potential to strengthen the concepts and ideas of critical success factors, broaden DevOps practices and perspectives for professionals, and enhance academic knowledge in this area.

Recommendations

Understanding devops critical success factors and organizational practices.

DevOps is a combination of practices and a company culture which aims minimize the barriers between the operation and development teams in the organization. As its adoption and use in the industry has been growing, different kinds of research are trying ...

Understanding DevOps Critical Success Factors: Insights from Professionals

This paper explores the factors that contribute to the success of software development undertaken with DevOps practices. DevOps is a set of practices that aims to increase software development process efficiency by reducing barriers between ...

DevOps critical success factors — A systematic literature review

DevOps is a set of software development and operation practices and a recent addition to a large family of different kinds of software process models. The model emerged out of the observation that information ...

• A systematic literature review was conducted to identify critical success factors.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

• Information
• Contributors

Published in

Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

In-Cooperation

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

• Published: 18 June 2024

Check for updates

Author tags.

• Critical Success Factors
• DevOps practices
• Multivocal Literature Review
• Software Development
• research-article
• Refereed limited

Acceptance Rates

Funding sources, other metrics.

• Bibliometrics
• Citations 0

Article Metrics

• 0 Total Citations View Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

This publication has not been cited yet

Digital Edition

View this article in digital edition.

Share this Publication link

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3661167.3661236

Share on Social Media

• 0 References

Export Citations

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

• DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v13i4.3344
• Corpus ID: 270426219

Literature review of the organizational citizenship behavior of employees in the public sector

• Muhammad Iqbal , Ika Nurul , Arni Surwanti
• Published in International Journal of… 11 June 2024
• Business, Sociology

Figures and Tables from this paper

49 References

The effects of organizational justice on employee performance using dimension of organizational citizenship behavior as mediation.

• Highly Influential

Assessment of Personality in Basque Public Sector Employees and Its Role in Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Selection Processes

Association between organizational citizenship behavior and patient safety culture from nurses’ perspectives: a descriptive correlational study, organizational culture and job demands and resources: their impact on employees’ wellbeing in a multivariate multilevel model, a proposed instrument for assessing organizational citizenship behavior in bfsi companies in india, supervisory support and organisational citizenship behaviour: the role of self-efficacy as mediator, triple mediation of attitude to bridge transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behavior, how level 5 leadership escalates organizational citizenship behaviour in telecom sector of pakistan exploring mediatory role of organizational dissent, the moderating effect of self-efficacy on supervisory support and organizational citizenship behavior, effects of a mindfulness app on employee stress in an australian public sector workforce: randomized controlled trial, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Open access
• Published: 01 December 2022

The psychological impact, risk factors and coping strategies to COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in the sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review of existing literature

• Freddy Wathum Drinkwater Oyat 1 ,
• Johnson Nyeko Oloya 1 , 2 ,
• Pamela Atim 1 , 3 ,
• Eric Nzirakaindi Ikoona 4 ,
• Judith Aloyo 1 , 5 &
• David Lagoro Kitara   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7282-5026 1 , 6 , 7  

BMC Psychology volume  10 , Article number:  284 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

6063 Accesses

9 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the physical and mental health of the general population worldwide, with healthcare workers at particular risk. The pandemic's effect on healthcare workers' mental well-being has been characterized by depression, anxiety, work-related stress, sleep disturbances, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Hence, protecting the mental well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a considerable priority. This review aimed to determine risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes and protective or coping measures to mitigate the harmful effects of the COVID-19 crisis among HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa.

We performed a literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant materials. We obtained all articles published between March 2020 and April 2022 relevant to the subject of review and met pre-defined eligibility criteria. We selected 23 articles for initial screening and included 12 in the final review.

A total of 5,323 participants in twelve studies, predominantly from Ethiopia (eight studies), one from Uganda, Cameroon, Mali, and Togo, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Investigators found 16.3–71.9% of HCWs with depressive symptoms, 21.9–73.5% with anxiety symptoms, 15.5–63.7% experienced work-related stress symptoms, 12.4–77% experienced sleep disturbances, and 51.6–56.8% reported PTSD symptoms. Healthcare workers, working in emergency, intensive care units, pharmacies, and laboratories were at higher risk of adverse mental health impacts. HCWs had deep fear, anxious and stressed with the high transmission rate of the virus, high death rates, and lived in fear of infecting themselves and families. Other sources of fear and work-related stress were the lack of PPEs, availability of treatment and vaccines to protect themselves against the virus. HCWs faced stigma, abuse, financial problems, and lack of support from employers and communities.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic has been high. Several organizational, community, and work-related challenges and interventions were identified, including improvement of workplace infrastructures, adoption of correct and shared infection control measures, provision of PPEs, social support, and implementation of resilience training programs. Setting up permanent multidisciplinary mental health teams at regional and national levels to deal with mental health and providing psychological support to HCWs, supported with long-term surveillance, are recommended.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

When coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020, healthcare workers (HCWs) globally and in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) were unprepared for the scale of the physical and mental health devastation that was to follow [ 1 ]. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers has been profound, characterized by death, disability, and untenable burden on mental health and well-being [ 2 ]. Factors impacting their mental health include high risks of exposure and infection, financial insecurity, separation from loved ones, stigma, difficult triage decisions, stressful work environment, scarcity of supplies including personal protective equipment (PPEs), exhaustion, traumatic experiences due to regular witnessing of deaths among patients and colleagues [ 2 , 3 ]. Greenberg et al. [ 4 ] observed that the COVID-19 pandemic put healthcare professionals worldwide in an unprecedented situation, making difficult decisions to provide care for many severely ill patients with constrained or inadequate resources.

In almost all WHO regions, data indicates that infection rates among healthcare workers are higher than in the general population [ 5 ]. Scholars suggest that the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet in sight. Neither are they sure about the virulence of the following variant when it appears as caseloads are still rising, with more than 621 million infections and 6.5 million deaths reported worldwide by 19th October 2022 [ 6 ]; mainly driven by the newer omicron variants. However, recently in October 2022, we received with gratitude a reassuring message from US President Biden declaring the end of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States of America.

Meanwhile, previous studies found high levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD in survivors among the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs) one-to-three years after the control of the SARS epidemic [ 7 ] and the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa [ 8 ]. In addition, recent surveys [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] are pointing to early evidence that a considerable proportion of healthcare workers have experienced stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about risks to their long-term mental health.

Studies from the global north countries [ 19 , 20 ], UK [ 21 ], USA [ 22 ], and in India [ 23 ], and China [ 24 , 25 ] have shed light on the vulnerability that characterizes frontline healthcare workers during this pandemic, especially regarding their mental health and well-being. However, evidence in sub-Saharan Africa is scanty, and the pattern and prevalence of psychological disorders are not well understood.

Evidence from a systematic review by Pappa S et al. on 33,062 Chinese HCWs in April 2020 found a pooled prevalence rate of mental health problems among respondents; anxiety 23.2%, depression 22.8%, and insomnia 38.9% [ 26 ]. Similarly, Singapore study, Tan et al . [ 27 ], Li et al . [ 28 ], BMA [ 29 ] and in China [ 31 ] found high levels of psychological disorders among health workers.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we found one systematic review involving 919 frontline HCWs, 3928 general HCWs, and 2979 medical students conducted in Africa from December 2019 to April 2020 [ 31 ]. The study by Chen J et al . reported a high prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among frontline HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) at 45%, 51%, and 28%, respectively. In comparison, the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among the general population was much lower at 30%, 31%, and 24%, respectively [ 31 ]. Furthermore, we found that only a few studies investigated protective and coping measures, given the many uncertainties surrounding the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 32 ]. Adequate data are needed to equip frontline HCWs and healthcare managers in sub-Saharan Africa to mitigate the medium and long-term adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 33 ].

This review aimed to answer three questions (1) What is the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs in Sub-Saharan Africa?

(2) What are the associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic?

(3) What interventions (mitigating and coping strategies) protect and support the mental health and well-being of HCWs during the ongoing crises and after the pandemic?

Methodology

Search methodology and article selection.

This current article is a mixed-method narrative review of existing literature on mental health disorders, risk factors, and interventions relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs in sub-Saharan. A search on the PubMed electronic database was undertaken using the search terms "novel coronavirus", "COVID-19", "nCoV", "mental health", "psychiatry", "psychology", "anxiety", "depression" and "stress" in various permutations and combinations.

Search processes

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on original articles published from March 2020 to 30 April 2022 in electronic databases of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the daily updated WHO COVID-19 database. Our search terms included but were not limited to ('COVID-19'/exp OR COVID-19 OR 'coronavirus'/exp OR coronavirus) AND ('psychological'/exp OR psychological OR 'mental'/exp OR mental OR 'stress'/exp OR stress OR 'anxiety' OR anxiety OR 'depression' OR depression OR 'post-traumatic' OR 'post-traumatic'/exp OR 'trauma' OR 'trauma'/exp) OR Health care workers, medical workers of health care professionals, sub-Saharan Africa, for Embase. ("COVID-19" [All Fields] OR "coronavirus" [All Fields]) AND ("Stress, Psychological" [Mesh] OR "mental" OR "anxiety" OR "depression" OR "stress" OR "post-traumatic" OR "trauma") for PubMed, for the WHO COVID-19 database, and ("COVID-19" OR "coronavirus") AND ("Psychological" OR "mental" OR "anxiety" OR "depression" OR "stress" OR "post-traumatic" OR "trauma") for Google Scholar. On reviewing the above citations, twelve articles met the inclusion criteria relevant for this review and are in Table 1 . All twelve articles were cross-sectional, with one qualitative and the others quantitative observational studies.

Eligibility criteria

We included original qualitative and quantitative studies examining the risk factors, psychological impact of COVID-19 and coping strategies of healthcare workers (HCWs) in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. We excluded studies if they were.

1. Not reported in the English language 2. Studies which were not primary research 3. Studies that had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal 4. Studies that did not include data on HCWs’ mental health or psychological well-being 5. Duplicate studies 6. not using validated instruments to measure the risks and psychological impact.

FWDO performed the search of articles. DLK reviewed the articles involving screening of titles, followed by examination of abstracts. The potential articles identified were further reviewed in full text to examine their eligibility. In addition, four of the authors independently reviewed the full articles to abstract the relevant data required for the review. Thereafter, a meeting to harmonise findings were done and presented in a report.

Data extraction and appraisal of the study

We extracted information from each study, including author, study population, year of publication, country, socio-demographic characteristics, sample size, response rate, gender proportion, age, and study time, areas assessed, the validated instrument used and the prevalence. The appraisal involved assessing the research design, recruitment of respondents, inclusion and exclusion criteria, reliability of outcome determination, statistical analyses, ethical compliance, strengths, limitations, and clinical implications of the articles.

Our review protocol was not registered on PROSPERO because of the significant variation in the methodologies of the articles used in the review. The results precluded using a meta-analytic approach and made a narrative review the most suitable for this work. In addition, we did not use the Cochrane Collaboration GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence of outcomes included in this narrative review. Instead, we used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 22 items checklist to gauge the quality of the twelve articles included in this review. We qualitatively validated the articles based on additional considerations namely study design, sample sizes, sampling procedures, response rates, statistical methods used, measures taken by the authors to deal with bias and confounding factors and ethical consideration.

Definition of healthcare worker (HCW)

For this narrative review, we adhered to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of HCWs, which includes physicians, nurses, emergency medical personnel, dental professionals and students, medical and nursing students, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, hospital volunteers, and administrative staff [ 34 ].

Search results

The search found twenty-three studies of interest. Full texts of potentially relevant studies underwent eligibility assessment, and twelve articles met the inclusion criteria for this narrative review.

Study characteristics

The twelve articles comprised eleven quantitative and one qualitative study. The common mental health conditions assessed were depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The coping strategy, perceived health status, health distress (including burnout), insomnia, and perceived stigma were also assessed [ 35 , 36 ]. The total number of respondents in these studies was 5,323. The qualitative study had fifty respondents [ 35 ], while the most significant number of participants, 420 was recorded in one of the quantitative studies from Ethiopia [ 37 ]. The questionnaire response rates varied between 90%-100%, with most studies dominated by male respondents at 51.9%-69.2% [ 38 ]. Nurses were the commonest study population, followed by doctors, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians, and no study involved non-HCWs of facilities. Most papers utilized probability sampling procedures, and four quantitative studies used non-random sampling procedures limiting generalizability of their findings and increasing the risk of selection bias. Eight studies were from Ethiopia, and one was from Cameroon, Uganda, Mali, and Togo, respectively (Table 1 ). Most studies were conducted in urban tertiary public hospitals, university teaching hospitals, and rural and urban general hospitals, including primary care facilities operated by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for example in Mali [ 39 ]. Several validated tools assessed depression, anxiety, insomnia, stress, and PTSD (Table 1 ).

Table 1 provides an overview of the studies selected and validated instruments used to measure psychological disorders.

Table 2 provides comparisons with studies conducted outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

Table 3 provides information on studies showing the classification of psychological outcomes.

Table 4 are studies showing risk factors associated with psychological disorders.

Table 5 are studies that identified protective factors for psychological disorders.

Risks of bias and confounding factors

Most articles selected were cross-sectional studies that employed probability sampling procedures (Table 1 ). Cross-sectional study design minimized selection biases, but many used structured questionnaires, including online self-administered questionnaires, which increased bias due to social desirability. It was not clear how confounding variables were controlled in five papers reviewed [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 45 ] leading to excessive and perhaps inappropriate determination of associations.

Socio-demographic factors

In this review, the mean age of the respondents ranged between 23 and 35 years, and predominantly males. Age was associated with anxiety, and stress symptoms in 6(50%) of all the studies reviewed [ 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 ]. An age of over 40 years was associated with moderate to severe symptoms of PTSD. Two studies concluded that respondents aged over 40 years were more likely to develop PTSD symptoms than their younger counterparts [ 37 , 41 ].

Female gender was significantly associated with depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms among HCWs in seven studies reviewed [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Many studies found that being female, married, and a nurse were independent predictors of stress symptoms. Moreover, sex, age, marital status, type of profession, and working environment were significant factors for PTSD symptoms [ 37 , 41 ]. However, one study in Ethiopia found that the odds of depression were twice higher among male healthcare providers than among female healthcare providers [ 35 ].

Psychological impact on healthcare workers

Most studies reviewed directly assessed the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs. Common causes of anxiety, fear, or psychological distress that health professionals reported were: lack of access to PPEs and other equipment, being exposed to COVID-19 at work and taking the infection home to their families, uncertainties that their organization will support/take care of their personal and family needs if they got infection, long working hours, death of colleagues, lack of social support, stigmatization, high rates of transmission and poor income [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. However, the prevalence of mental health symptoms exhibited great variations for example depressive symptoms were examined in nine studies [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], and varied between 16.3% and 71.9% among HCWs [ 38 , 39 ].

In addition, nine other studies reported high prevalence of anxiety symptoms among HCWs [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ] which varied between 21.9% and 73.5% [ 36 , 39 ]. Five studies investigated HCWs' perceived stress during the pandemic; 15.5%-63.7% of HCWs reported high levels of work-related stress [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 43 , 45 ]. Three studies reported 12.4–77% of HCWs experienced sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 37 , 39 , 40 ].

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was in three studies [ 38 , 41 , 42 ], and the prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms varied between 51.6 and 56.8% in HCWs [ 38 , 41 ]. A qualitative study from Uganda reported high symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among HCWs [ 35 ]. Additionally, factors that increased the risk of PTSD symptoms were for example, working in emergency units and being frontline workers. Furthermore, many studies found that frontline HCWs had increased symptoms of mental disorders and being a frontline worker was an independent risk factor for depression, anxiety, and PTSD [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].

Risk factors associated with adverse mental health outcomes

The qualitative study from Uganda reported the factors associated with mental disorder symptoms among HCWs. These were long working hours, lack of equipment (PPEs, testing kits), lack of sleep, exhaustion, high death rates, death of colleagues, and a high COVID-19 transmission rate among HCWs [ 35 ]. Lack of equipment (PPEs, ventilators, and testing kits), overworking, and lack of logistic support were in Ethiopian studies [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 ]. Most studies identified several risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among respondents for example those with medical and mental illnesses, contacts with confirmed COVID-19 patients, and poor social support which were significantly associated with depression [ 42 , 43 ]. Other factors were females, nurses, married, frontline workers, ICU, emergency units, living alone, and lack of social support [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Too, participants’ families with chronic illnesses, had contacts with confirmed COVID-19 cases, and poor social support were significantly associated with anxiety. Other risk factors associated with anxiety include exhaustion, long working hours, frontline workers, emergencies, nurses, pharmacists, laboratory technicians, married, older, younger, living alone, being female, working at general and referral hospitals, and perceived stigma. In addition, participants’ families with chronic illnesses, those who had contacts with confirmed COVID-19 cases, and those with poor social support were predictors of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 ]. Other stress symptoms include having a medical illness, a mental illness, being a frontline worker, married, nurse, female, pharmacist, laboratory technician, physician, older age, lack of standardized PPE supply, low incomes, and living with a family [ 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Healthcare providers with low monthly incomes were significantly more likely to develop stress than those with high monthly incomes [ 38 ]. In addition, participants living alone, living with a family, and being married were associated with symptoms of psychological disorders among HCWs [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 45 ]. Overall, the risk factors for adverse psychological impacts are categorized in three thematic areas (i) occupational, (ii) psychosocial, and (iii) environmental aspects.

Occupational factors

Most studies showed that frontline HCWs, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians had significantly higher levels of mental health risks compared to non-frontline HCWs [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 ]. They experienced higher frequency of insomnia, anxiety, depression, and somatization than non-frontline medical HCWs. In contrast, Mali [ 39 ] and Cameroon [ 46 ] studies found a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD in non-frontline HCWs [ 39 , 46 ]. However, among HCWs, physicians were 20% less likely to develop mental health disorders than nurses, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians [ 39 ]. In addition, healthcare workers with low monthly incomes had higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia [ 37 ].

Healthcare groups

Five studies found that being a nurse was associated with worse mental disorders than doctors [ 36 , 37 , 40 , 44 , 45 ].

Frontline staff with direct contact with COVID-19

Most papers in the review found that being in a “frontline” position or having direct contact with COVID-19 patients was associated with higher level of psychological distress [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 ]. In addition, studies found that contact with COVID-19 patients was independently associated with an increased risk of sleep disturbances [ 40 , 46 ]. Moreover, HCWs who had contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases were more likely to develop depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms than those who had no contact with COVID-19 patients [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 45 ].

Lack of personal protective equipment (PPEs)

Most studies reported that the lack of PPEs was associated with higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia, while its availability was associated with fewer mental disorder symptoms [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. In Mali, workers from centres that provided facemasks were 51% less likely to suffer from depression, 62% less likely to develop anxiety, and 45% less likely to develop insomnia [ 39 ]. In Ethiopia, the odds of developing post-traumatic stress disorder were much higher among HCWs who did not receive standardized PPEs supplies than those who had [ 38 , 41 , 42 ]. In Uganda, the lack of PPEs was associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD [ 35 ].

Heavy workload

Longer working hours, increased work intensity, increased patient load, and exhaustion were risk factors in Ugandan [ 35 ] and Ethiopian studies [ 36 ].

Psychosocial factors: perceived stigma and fear of infection

The fear of infection was in the qualitative study from Uganda [ 35 ], one quantitative study from Cameroon [ 47 ] and seven cross-sectional studies from Ethiopia [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Poor social support was associated with PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, and stress [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. Two studies reported that HCWs with perceived stigmatization were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD [ 37 , 42 ].

family concerns

This came up as one of the main risk factors of stress in almost all studies, especially among those HCWs in direct contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. A family member suffering from COVID-19 was associated with poor mental health outcomes in HCWs [ 36 , 37 ].

Protective psychosocial factors

Two studies suggest a reduction of perceived stigma can be achieved by sensitization of communities about COVID-19 [ 37 , 42 ], and four studies recommend solid social support [ 36 , 37 , 42 , 43 ].

Safety of family

Family safety had the most significant impact in reducing stress. Safety from COVID-19 infection and financial protection of families were essential coping strategies for HCWs [ 35 , 36 ].

Underlying illnesses

We found three studies that reported an underlying medical and mental illness as an independent risk factor for poor psychological outcomes [ 42 , 43 , 45 ].

Protective factors against adverse mental health outcomes

The review identified protective factors to adverse mental health outcomes during COVID-19. The qualitative study from Uganda and four quantitative cross-sectional studies from Ethiopia identified some protective factors [ 35 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 45 ]. The protective factors are grouped under three thematic areas (i) occupational, (ii) psychosocial, and (iii) environmental aspects.

The qualitative study identified many social coping strategies among respondents, including family networks, community networks, help from family, responsibility to society, assistance from community members, availability of assistance from strangers, and the symbiotic nature of assistance in the community [ 35 ].

Protective occupational factors

Studies suggest that physicians suffered fewer mental health disorders partly because of their experience with previous epidemics [ 37 , 42 , 45 ].

Some necessary coping measures include good hospital guidance and ongoing training of frontline HCWs [ 37 , 42 , 45 ].

Adequate supply of PPEs

As mentioned above, PPE was a protective factor when adequate and a risk factor for poor mental health outcomes when deemed inadequate [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 43 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an ongoing global public health emergency that has burdened healthcare workers' physical and mental well-being (HCWs) [ 1 , 5 ]. Our review confirms the enormous magnitude of mental health impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is widespread, with significant levels of depression, anxiety, distress, and insomnia; especially those working directly with COVID-19 patients at particular risk [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Out of the twelve articles reviewed, eight studies (66%) came from Ethiopia, and this has implications on the results (Table 1 ). This finding indicates few research published to date on the psychological impact of the pandemic on the mental health of HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa; a subregion that the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted.

Overview of the study sites

Studies in this review were conducted predominantly in hospital settings. We found only one study relating to primary healthcare workers or facilities [ 38 ]. This finding is of concern, as there is increasing evidence that many non-frontline HCWs continue to suffer psychological symptoms long after the conclusion of infectious disease epidemics [ 7 , 8 ]. In addition, a significant mortality due to COVID-19 was due to excess morbidity, some of which were from primary care facilities. Given that this study is the first narrative review in sub-Saharan Africa, it would be helpful to briefly compare our findings with some published reviews and surveys from other regions (Table 2 ).

High prevalence of psychological disorders among participants

Investigators in this review found 16.3–71.9% HCWs with depressive symptoms, 21.9–73.5% had anxiety symptoms, 15.5–63.7% experienced work-related stress symptoms, 12.4–77% experienced sleep disturbances, and 51.6–56.8% PTSD symptoms [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. This high prevalence of mental health symptoms among HCWs in our review is consistent with previous reviews conducted early in the pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa [ 31 ], Asia [ 17 , 18 , 26 , 28 ], USA & Europe [ 15 , 16 ], and supported by a batch of cross-sectional studies globally [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 27 , 30 ]. We found mixed results with significant variations within and among regions and countries, as depicted in Tables 1 and 2 .

Risk factors of psychological disorders among participants

Studies established that HCWs responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa were exposed to long working hours, overworking, exhaustion, high risk of infection, and shortage of personal protective equipment (Tables 3 and 4 ). In addition, HCWs had deep fear, were anxious and stressed with the high transmission rate of the virus among themselves, high death rates among themselves and their patients, and lived under constant fear of infecting themselves and their families with obvious consequences [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Some HCWs were deeply worried about the lack of standardized PPEs, known treatments and vaccines to protect against the virus. Many health workers had financial problems, lacked support from families and employers if they contracted the virus [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 ]. An additional source of fear and anxiety was the perceived stigma attached to being infected with COVID-19 by the public [ 36 , 41 ]. Studies found that HCWs, especially those working in emergency, intensive care units, infectious disease wards, pharmacies, and laboratories, were at higher risk of developing adverse mental health impacts compared to others [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. This is supported by previous reviews [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 26 , 28 ] and cross-sectional studies [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 30 ]. However, findings were inconsistent on the impact of COVID-19 on frontline health workers, with ten studies [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 ] suggesting they are at higher risk than peers and two studies showing no significant difference in psychological disorders relating to the departments [ 38 , 43 ].

The Mali’s study was conducted exclusively in primary care facilities among HCWs not involved in treating COVID-19 cases but still registered a very high prevalence of depression 71.9%, anxiety 73.6%, and insomnia 77.0% [ 39 ]. In contrast, two studies conducted among HCWs at COVID-19 treatment facilities in Ethiopia [ 36 , 38 ] registered much lower prevalence of depression 20.2%, anxiety 21.0%, and insomnia12.4% [ 36 ], and 16.3%, 30.7% and 15.9% respectively, in the second study [ 38 ]. These findings show that not only frontline HCWs experienced mental health disorders during this pandemic but highlight the need for direct interventions for all HCWs regardless of occupation or workstation during this and future pandemics. The significant disparity in the studies could be due to structural, occupational, and environmental issues for example challenges faced by Mali's healthcare systems, characterized by acute equipment shortages, lack of PPEs, human resources, lack of trained and experienced HCWs, ongoing nationwide insecurity, and terrorism compared to Ethiopia. Therefore, local context needs to be considered as contributing factor to mental health disorders among HCWs.

Regional variations of psychological disorders

Tan et al . found a higher prevalence of anxiety among non-medical HCWs in Singapore [ 27 ]. As previously noted, the prevalence of poor psychological outcomes varied between countries. Compared to sub-Saharan Africa and China, data from India [ 23 ] and Singapore [ 27 ] revealed an overall lower prevalence of anxiety and depression than similar cross-sectional data from sub-Saharan Africa [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] and China [ 9 , 25 , 30 ]. This finding suggests that different contexts and cultures may reveal different psychological findings and that, it is possible that being at different countries’ outbreak curve may play a part, as there is evidence that it is influential.

Tan et al . suggests that medical HCWs in Singapore had experienced a SARS outbreak and thus were well prepared for COVID-19 psychologically and infection control measures [ 27 ]. What can be deduced is that context and cultural factors play a role, not just the cadre or role of healthcare workers [ 16 ]. It also highlights the importance of reviewing evidence regularly as more data emerge from other countries.

One hospital in Ethiopia found that the thought of resignation was associated with higher chances of mental health disorders and that pharmacists and laboratory technicians who did not receive prior training exhibited higher symptoms of mental health disorders compared to others [ 36 ]. Work shift arrangement, considering a dangerous atmosphere presented by working in COVID-19 wards, was one which exacerbated or relieved mental health symptoms among HCWs, with shorter exposure periods being most beneficial [ 36 ]. Meanwhile, studies found that financial worries caused by severe lockdowns and erratic payment of salaries and allowances were also major stressors [ 35 ]. This finding is like studies in Pakistan [ 13 ] and China [ 30 , 32 ].

In this review, HCWs who had contact with confirmed COVID-19 patients were more affected by depression, anxiety, and stress than their counterparts who had not [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 ]. This finding is like previous reviews [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 26 , 28 , 31 ] and cross-sectional studies [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 30 ], which reported higher depression, anxiety, and psychological symptoms of distress in HCWs who were in direct contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

A study in Pakistan showed that 80% of participants expected the provision of PPE from authority [ 13 ], and 86% were anxious. Some respondents alluded to forced deployment, while in Mali, 73.3% were anxious, with the majority worrying about the shortage of nurses [ 39 ]. Therefore, prospects of being deployed at a workstation where one had not been trained or oriented contributed to fear among health workers. In the sub-Saharan African context, this scenario can best be represented in HCWs involved in internship who must endure hard work during their training. Tan et al . found that junior doctors were more stressed than nurses in Singapore [ 27 ].

Socio-demographic characteristics

Nearly all studies in our review suggest that socio-demographic variables for example age, gender, marital status, and living alone or with families contribute to the high mental disorder symptoms [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. We, the authors suggest that these observations are handled cautiously as several investigators of these reviewed articles did not entirely control the influence of confounding variables. An alternative explanation for this study's findings may be the more significant risks of frontline exposure amongst women and junior HCWs, predominantly employed in lower-status roles, many of whom lacked experience and appropriate training within healthcare system globally. It is also important to note that respondents to all studies, when disaggregated by gender, and age, were predominantly younger or female, which may have impacted the outcomes of these findings [ 16 ]. In addition, the consistently higher mortality rates, and risk of severe COVID-19 disease amongst men would suggest that the complete picture regarding gender and mental health during this pandemic is still incomplete [ 16 ]. Moreover, in several studies, both younger and older age groups were equally affected by mental health symptoms but for different reasons. Cai et al . [ 32 ] in a Chinese study on HCWs for example observed that irrespective of age, colleagues' safety, self and families' safety, the lack of treatment for COVID-19 was a factor that induced stress in HCWs. Similarly, in our review, the lack of PPEs, high infection transmission rates, high death rates among HCWs, and the fear of infecting their families were the factors that induced stress in all HCWs [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].

We, the authors propose that paying close attention to concerns of HCWs by employers would greatly relieve some stressors and contribute to increased mental well-being of participants. Compared with physicians, our review showed that nurses were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and stress [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 ]. Workloads and night shifts in healthcare facilities, as well as contacts with risky patients, enhanced nurses' mental distress risks [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. In addition, nursing staff have more extended physical contacts and closer interactions with patients than other professionals, providing round-the-clock care required by patients with COVID-19 and thus the increased risk [ 15 ]. On the one hand, we posit that most senior physicians are experienced and always keep well-informed with emerging medical emergencies. The majority become aware of emerging epidemic early and actively protect themselves from infections through regular scientific literature updates compared to their junior counterparts. Senior physicians also spend less time in emergency wards unless there is a need to conduct specific procedures which cannot be undertaken by senior housemen or general medical officers. Cai et al . [ 32 ] concluded that it is essential to have a high level of training and professional experience for healthcare workers engaging in public health emergencies, especially for the new staff. As a result, these findings highlight the importance of focusing on all the frontline HCWs sacrificing to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regular monitoring of high-risk groups

There is a need to continue monitoring the high-at-risk groups, including nursing staff, interns, support staff, and all deployed in emergency wards. These high-at-risk groups should be encouraged to undertake screening, treatment, and vaccination to avoid the medium and long-term consequences of such epidemics [ 15 , 16 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 44 ].

Social support and coping mechanisms

The effect of social support and coping measures is in the qualitative study [ 34 ] and three other quantitative studies [ 36 , 41 , 42 ] which concluded that respondents with good social support were less likely to suffer from severe depression, anxiety, work-related stress, and PTSD. The qualitative study identified several coping measures, including community and organizational support, family, and community networks, help from family, responsibility to society, and assistance from community members and strangers, including the symbiotic nature of assistance in the community [ 35 ]. Other measures include providing accommodation and food to employees [ 35 ].

Interestingly, no study examined the association of resilience and self-efficacy with sleep quality, degrees of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and stress. However, a Chinese study by Cai et al. [ 32 ] suggests that the social support given to HCWs causes a reduction in anxiety and stress levels and increases their self-efficacy. In divergence, Xiao et al . [ 46 ] found no relationship between social support and sleep quality.

Only two studies in our review examined the effects of stigma on the mental health of HCWs [ 36 , 41 ] and found that HCWs with perceived stigma were more likely to be depressed, anxious, stressed, and prone to poor sleep quality [ 36 , 41 ]. We, the authors suggest that better community sensitization by creating public awareness involving appropriate local community structures and networks are essential. The broader community in sub-Saharan Africa may have suffered severely from infodemics with severe consequences on their mental health, especially during the difficult lockdowns. In addition, removing discrimination/inequalities at the workplace based on race and other social standings have a powerful influence on the mental health outcomes of HCWs. Also, because emotional exhaustion is long associated with depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, none of the studies in our review examined burnout as an essential component of mental health disorders in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Protective and coping measures

In this review we have provided evidence about personal, occupational, and environmental factors that were important protective and coping measures against psychological disorders. Based on these factors we suggest some protective and coping measures which can help to reduce the negative effects of the pandemic on mental health of HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa. Organizations and healthcare managers need to be aware that primary prevention is key to any successful interventions to contain and control any epidemic. This should take the form of planned regular training, orientation and continuing medical education grounded on proven infection control measures. These measures need to be backed up by timely provision of protective equipment, drugs, testing facilities, vaccines, isolation facilities, clinical and mental health support, and personal welfare of HCWs [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 45 ]. The effect of community and organizational support and coping measures was shown by the qualitative study [ 35 ] and five other quantitative studies [ 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] indicating that respondents who had good social and organizational support were less likely to suffer from severe depression, anxiety, work related stress and PTSD. Prior experience with comparable pandemics and training are suggested as beneficial coping strategies for healthcare workers during this pandemic but also local social structural and geopolitical conditions appear to determine the pattern and evolution of mental health symptoms among HCWs [ 14 , 15 , 31 , 32 , 47 ]. In our case the high prevalence of all mental health symptoms in non-frontline primary health care facilities in Mali [ 39 ] which was already plagued with instability and weak healthcare systems prior to the pandemic is a case in point. Results are particularly consistent in showing that provision of PPEs, testing kits, orientation training of workers, work shift arrangements, provision of online counselling, provision of food and accommodation and prompt payment of allowances by employers were important protective measures [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. The feeling of being protected is associated with higher work motivation with implication for staff turnover [ 35 , 38 , 43 , 45 ]. Hence, physical protective materials [ 14 ], together with frequent provision of information, should be the cornerstone of any interventions to prevent deterioration in mental health of HCWs (Table 5 ). Finally, provision of rest rooms, online consultation with psychologists/psychiatrists, protection from financial hardships, access to social amenities and religious activities are some important coping measures [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 45 ]. In this era of digital health care with plentiful internet and smartphones, organization can conduct online trainings, online mental health education, online psychological counselling services, and online psychological self-help intervention tailored to the needs of their HCWs [ 35 , 37 , 42 ]. In addition, it is essential to understand and address the sources of anxiety among healthcare professionals during this COVID-19 pandemic, as this has been one of the most experienced mental health symptoms [ 48 ]. Adequate protective equipment provided by health facilities is one of the most important motivational factors for encouraging continuation of work in future outbreaks. Furthermore, availability of strict infection control guidelines, specialized equipment, recognition of their efforts by facility management, government, and reduction in reported cases of COVID-19 provide psychological benefits [ 15 , 32 ]. Finally, we call upon Governments (the largest employers of HCWs) in sub-Saharan Africa to do what it takes to improve investments in the mental health of HCWs and plan proactively in anticipation of managing infectious disease epidemics, including other expected and unexpected disasters.

Future research direction

There was no study that examined the association of resilience and self-efficacy with sleep quality, degrees of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and stress. Although emotional exhaustion has long been associated with depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, no study in our review examined burnout as an important component of mental health disorders in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa. The impacts of infodemics, stringent lockdown measures, discrimination/inequalities at workplaces based on race, and other social standings on mental health outcomes of HCWs need to be investigated.

Future studies are needed on the above including other critical areas like suicidality, suicidal ideations, and substance abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there is a significant variation of related literature calling for more rigorous research in future. More systematic studies will be required to clarify the full impact of the pandemic so that meaningful interventions can be planned and executed at institutional and national levels in the Sub-Saharan Africa.

Limitations of this study

There are some limitations to this study. First, most of the studies are from one country, limiting the generalizability of the results to the whole African continent. Second, all the studies were cross-sectional and only looked at associations and correlations. There is a need for prospective or retrospective cohort or case–control studies on this subject matter. Longitudinal research studies on the prevalence of mental disorders in the COVID-19 pandemic in the sub-Saharan Africa are urgently required. Third, most studies reviewed did not adequately examine protective factors or coping measures of the health workers in their settings. In addition, most studies did not pay strict attention to confounding variables which could have led to inappropriate results and conclusions. Fourth, most sample sizes were small and unlikely representative of the population and yet larger sample sizes would better identify the extent of mental health problems among health workers in the region. Fifth, depression, anxiety, and stress were assessed solely through self-administered questionnaires rather than face-to-face psychiatric interviews. Sixth, these studies employed various instruments and different cut-off thresholds to assess severity. Notably, the magnitude and severity of reported mental health outcomes may vary based on the validity and sensitivity of the measurement tools. Seventh, there was no mention of mental baseline information among the studied population and therefore it was unknown if the studied population had pre-existing mental health illnesses that decompensated during the pandemic crisis. Eight, investigators did not give much attention to stigma, burnout, resilience, and self-efficacy among study participants.

Furthermore, our review did not employ systematic reviews or meta-analyses methods for the information generated. This narrative review paper precluded deeper insight into the quality of reviewed articles for this paper. Still, our observation was that investigators did not consider the strict lockdown measures, quarantine, and isolation imposed by many countries in sub-Saharan Africa as possible risk factors for mental health disorders among HCWs.

Based on the articles reviewed, the prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs in the sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic is high. We implore health authorities to consider setting up permanent multidisciplinary mental health teams at regional and national levels to deal with mental health issues and provide psychological support to patients and HCWs, always supported with sufficient budgetary allocations.

Long-term surveillance is essential to keep track of insidiously rising mental health crises among community members. There is a significant variation of related literature thus calling for more rigorous research in the future. More systematic studies will be needed to clarify the full impact of the pandemic so that meaningful interventions can be planned better and executed at institutional and national levels in sub-Saharan Africa.

Availability of data and materials

Datasets analysed in the current study are available from the corresponding author at a reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Coronavirus disease 2019

Healthcare workers.

Mental health

Public health emergency

Personal protective equipment

World Health Organisation

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (Accessed 1 March 2020).

Veenema TG, Closser S, Thrul J. Mental Health, and Social Support for Healthcare and Hospital Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; 2021.

Chersich MF, Gray G, Fairlie L. COVID-19 in Africa: care and protection for frontline healthcare workers. Global Health. 2020;16:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00574-3Interventions .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Greenberg N, Docherty M, Gnanapragasam S, Wessely S. Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during a COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ. 2020;368: m1211. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1211 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

WHO. Keep health workers safe to keep patients safe: WHO. 2020. https:// www.who.int/news/item/17-09-2020-keep-health-workers-safe-to-keep - patients-safe-who. Accessed 21 October 2020.

WHO. Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19- 19 th October 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---19-october-2022 .

Maunder R, Lancee W, Balderson K, Bennett J, Borgundvaag B, Evans S, et al. Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerging Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924–32. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1212.060584 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Jalloh MF, Li W, Bunnell RE. Impact of Ebola experiences and risk perceptions on mental health in Sierra Leone, July 2015. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3: e000471. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000471 .

Kang L, Li Y, Hu S, Chen M, Yang C, Yang BX, et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3): e14.

Huang JZ, Han MF, Luo TD, Ren AK, Zhou XP. Mental health survey of 230 medical staff in a tertiary infectious disease hospital for COVID-19. Zhonghua lao dong wei sheng zhi ye bing za zhi = Zhonghua laodong weisheng zhiyebing zazhi. Chinese J Indus Hygiene Occup Dis. 2020;38:E001.

Google Scholar  

Cai W, Lian B, Song X, Hou T, Deng G, Li H. A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of coronavirus disease. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102111 .

Elhadi M, Msherghi A, Elgzairi M, Alhashimi A, Bouhuwaish A, Biala M, Abuelmeda S, et al. Psychological status of healthcare workers during the civil war and COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2020;137: 110221.

Urooj U, Ansari A, Siraj A, Khan S, Tariq H. Expectations, fears, and perceptions of doctors during COVID-19 pandemic. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36:S37–42. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2643 .

Khanal P, Devkota N, Dahal M, Paudel K, Joshi D. Mental health impacts among health workers during COVID-19 in a low resource setting: a cross-sectional survey from Nepal. Global Health. 2020;16(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00621-z .

Preti E, Di Mattei V, Perego G. The psychological impact of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(8):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01166-z .

De Kock JH, Latham HA, Leslie SJ, Grindle M, Munoz SA, Ellis L, et al. A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10070-3 .

Luo M, Guo L, Yu M, Jiang W, Wang H. The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and the general public. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190 .

Bareeqa SB, Ahmed SI, Samar SS, Yasin W, Zehra S, Monese GM, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress in china during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2021;56:210–27.

Søvold LE, Naslund JA, Kousoulis AA. Prioritizing the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers: an urgent global public health priority. Front Public Health. 2021;9: 679397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.679397 .

Consolo U, Bellini P, Bencivenni D, Iani C, Checchi V. Epidemiological aspects, and psychological reactions to COVID-19 of dental practitioners in the Northern Italy districts of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3459. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103459 .

Gilleen J, Santaolalla A, Valdearenas L, Salice C, Fusté M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of UK healthcare workers. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(3): e88. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.42 .

Shechter A, Diaz F, Moise N, Anstey DE, Ye S, Agarwal S, et al. psychological distress, coping behaviours, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020;66:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.06.007 .

Wilson W, Raj JP, Rao S, Ghiya M, Nedungalaparambil NM, Mundra H, et al. Prevalence and predictors of stress, anxiety, and depression among healthcare workers managing COVID-19 pandemic in India: a nationwide observational study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2020;42(4):353–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620933992 .

Wang S, Xie L, Xu Y, Yu S, Yao B, Xiang D. Sleep disturbances among medical workers during the outbreak of COVID-2019. Occup Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa074 .

Kang L, Ma S, Chen M, Yang J, Wang Y, Li R. Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: a cross-sectional study. Brain Behav Immun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028 .

Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, Giannakoulis VG, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behavi Immun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.026 .

Tan BYQ, Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Jing M, Goh Y, Yeo LLL. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Singapore. Ann Intern Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1083 .

Li Y, Scherer N, Felix L, Kuper H. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(3): e0246454. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246454 .

British Medical Association. The mental health and well-being of the medical workforce – now and beyond COVID-19. 2020. Available from URL: https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2475/bma-covid-19-and-nhs-staff-mental-healthwellbeing-report-may-2020.pdf .

Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, Cai Z, Hu J, Wei N, et al. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3): e203976. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976 .

Chen J, Farah N, Dong RK, Chen RZ, Xu W, Yin J, et al. Mental health during the COVID-19 crisis in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:10604. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010604 .

Gupta S, Sahoo S. Pandemic, and mental health of the frontline healthcare workers: a review and implications in the Indian context amidst COVID-19. Gen Psychiatr. 2020;33(5): e100284. https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2020-100284 .

Cai H, Tu B, Ma J, Chen L, Fu L, Jiang Y, et al. psychological impact, and coping strategies of frontline medical staff in Hunan between January and March 2020 during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei, China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:924171. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.924171 .

CDC. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. CDC (2020) Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/rec-vac/hcw.html .

Muzyamba C, Makova O, Mushibi GS. Exploring health workers’ experiences of mental health challenges during care of patients with COVID-19 in Uganda: a qualitative study. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05707-4 .

GebreEyesus FA, Tarekegn TT, Amlak BT, Shiferaw BZ, Emeria MS, Geleta OT, et al. Levels and predictors of anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19 pandemic among frontline healthcare providers in Gurage zonal public hospitals, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020: a multicentre cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(11): e0259906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259906 .

Mulatu HA, Tesfaye M, Woldeyes E. The prevalence of common mental disorders among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary Hospital in East Africa. Med Rxiv. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.29.20222430 .

Ayalew M, Deribe B, Abraham Y, Reta Y, Tadesse F, Defar S. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and its predictors among healthcare workers following COVID-19 pandemic in Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.818910 .

Sagaon-Teyssier L, Kamissoko A, Yattassaye A, Diallo F, Castro DR, Delabre R, et al. Assessment of mental health outcomes and associated factors among workers in community-based HIV care centers in the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Mali. Health Policy Open. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpopen.2020.100017 .

Kemal J. Psychological distress, early behavioral response, and perception toward the COVID-19 pandemic among health care workers in North Shoa Zone, Oromiya region. Front Psychiatry. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.628898 .

Chekole YA, Minaye SY, Abate SM, Mekuriaw B. Perceived stress, and its associated factors during COVID-19 among healthcare providers in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Adv Public Heal. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5036861 .

Asnakew S. Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder on health professionals in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, Northwest Ethiopia 2020: a multi-centred cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0255340.

Asnakew S, Amha H, Kassew T. Mental health adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Northwest Ethiopia: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:1375–84. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S306300 .

Kounou KB, Guédénon KM, Foli AAD, Gnassounou-Akpa E. Mental health of medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Togo. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:559–60.

Ayalew MB. Prevalence and determinant factors of mental health problems among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in southern Ethiopia: a multicentre cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057708 .

Keubo FRN, Mboua PC, Tadongfack TD, Tchoffo EF, Tatang CT, Zeuna JI, et al. psychological distress among health care professionals of the three COVID-19 most affected Regions in Cameroon: Prevalence and associated factors. In: Annales Médico-Psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique; Elsevier Masson: Paris, France. 2021;179:141–146.

Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. The effects of social support on sleep quality of medical staff treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.923549 .

Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5893 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Uganda Medical Association Acholi-branch members for the financial assistance which enabled the team to conduct this study successfully.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Uganda Medical Association (UMA), UMA-Acholi Branch, Gulu City, Uganda

Freddy Wathum Drinkwater Oyat, Johnson Nyeko Oloya, Pamela Atim, Judith Aloyo & David Lagoro Kitara

Moroto Regional Referral Hospital, Moroto, Uganda

Johnson Nyeko Oloya

St. Joseph’s Hospital, Kitgum District, Uganda

Pamela Atim

ICAP at Columbia University, Freetown, Sierra Leone

Eric Nzirakaindi Ikoona

Rhites-N, Acholi, Gulu City, Uganda

Judith Aloyo

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu City, Uganda

David Lagoro Kitara

Harvard University, Cambridge, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FWDO, JA, JNO, ENI and DLK searched and screened studies and extracted data from selected articles. FWDO wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors reviewed and edited the final draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lagoro Kitara .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oyat, F.W.D., Oloya, J.N., Atim, P. et al. The psychological impact, risk factors and coping strategies to COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in the sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review of existing literature. BMC Psychol 10 , 284 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00998-z

Download citation

Received : 03 September 2022

Accepted : 22 November 2022

Published : 01 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00998-z

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

• COVID-19 pandemic
• Social support
• Occupational health and safety
• Mental health surveillance
• Workplace organization

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]