critical literature review method

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  

523 Accesses

1 Citations

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

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Dennis Thomas

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

Elida Zairina

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

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

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

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

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

Download citation

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

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 17, 2024 2:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

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
• Wiley Open Access Collection

An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews

Prabhakar veginadu.

1 Department of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo Victoria, Australia

Hanny Calache

2 Lincoln International Institute for Rural Health, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln UK

Akshaya Pandian

3 Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai Tamil Nadu, India

Mohd Masood

Associated data.

APPENDIX B: List of excluded studies with detailed reasons for exclusion

APPENDIX C: Quality assessment of included reviews using AMSTAR 2

The aim of this overview is to identify and collate evidence from existing published systematic review (SR) articles evaluating various methodological approaches used at each stage of an SR.

The search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception to November 2020 and updated in February 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and APA PsycINFO. Title and abstract screening were performed in two stages by one reviewer, supported by a second reviewer. Full‐text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist.

The search retrieved 41,556 unique citations, of which 9 SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion in final synthesis. Included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches used for defining the review scope and eligibility, literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal in the SR process. Limited evidence supports the following (a) searching multiple resources (electronic databases, handsearching, and reference lists) to identify relevant literature; (b) excluding non‐English, gray, and unpublished literature, and (c) use of text‐mining approaches during title and abstract screening.

The overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process, as well as some methodological modifications currently used in expedited SRs. Overall, findings of this overview highlight the dearth of published SRs focused on SR methodologies and this warrants future work in this area.

1. INTRODUCTION

Evidence synthesis is a prerequisite for knowledge translation. 1 A well conducted systematic review (SR), often in conjunction with meta‐analyses (MA) when appropriate, is considered the “gold standard” of methods for synthesizing evidence related to a topic of interest. 2 The central strength of an SR is the transparency of the methods used to systematically search, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence. 3 Several guidelines, developed by various organizations, are available for the conduct of an SR; 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 among these, Cochrane is considered a pioneer in developing rigorous and highly structured methodology for the conduct of SRs. 8 The guidelines developed by these organizations outline seven fundamental steps required in SR process: defining the scope of the review and eligibility criteria, literature searching and retrieval, selecting eligible studies, extracting relevant data, assessing risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, synthesizing results, and assessing certainty of evidence (CoE) and presenting findings. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7

The methodological rigor involved in an SR can require a significant amount of time and resource, which may not always be available. 9 As a result, there has been a proliferation of modifications made to the traditional SR process, such as refining, shortening, bypassing, or omitting one or more steps, 10 , 11 for example, limits on the number and type of databases searched, limits on publication date, language, and types of studies included, and limiting to one reviewer for screening and selection of studies, as opposed to two or more reviewers. 10 , 11 These methodological modifications are made to accommodate the needs of and resource constraints of the reviewers and stakeholders (e.g., organizations, policymakers, health care professionals, and other knowledge users). While such modifications are considered time and resource efficient, they may introduce bias in the review process reducing their usefulness. 5

Substantial research has been conducted examining various approaches used in the standardized SR methodology and their impact on the validity of SR results. There are a number of published reviews examining the approaches or modifications corresponding to single 12 , 13 or multiple steps 14 involved in an SR. However, there is yet to be a comprehensive summary of the SR‐level evidence for all the seven fundamental steps in an SR. Such a holistic evidence synthesis will provide an empirical basis to confirm the validity of current accepted practices in the conduct of SRs. Furthermore, sometimes there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the resource availability and the need to synthesize the evidence in the best way possible, given the constraints. This evidence base will also inform the choice of modifications to be made to the SR methods, as well as the potential impact of these modifications on the SR results. An overview is considered the choice of approach for summarizing existing evidence on a broad topic, directing the reader to evidence, or highlighting the gaps in evidence, where the evidence is derived exclusively from SRs. 15 Therefore, for this review, an overview approach was used to (a) identify and collate evidence from existing published SR articles evaluating various methodological approaches employed in each of the seven fundamental steps of an SR and (b) highlight both the gaps in the current research and the potential areas for future research on the methods employed in SRs.

An a priori protocol was developed for this overview but was not registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), as the review was primarily methodological in nature and did not meet PROSPERO eligibility criteria for registration. The protocol is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This overview was conducted based on the guidelines for the conduct of overviews as outlined in The Cochrane Handbook. 15 Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement. 3

2.1. Eligibility criteria

Only published SRs, with or without associated MA, were included in this overview. We adopted the defining characteristics of SRs from The Cochrane Handbook. 5 According to The Cochrane Handbook, a review was considered systematic if it satisfied the following criteria: (a) clearly states the objectives and eligibility criteria for study inclusion; (b) provides reproducible methodology; (c) includes a systematic search to identify all eligible studies; (d) reports assessment of validity of findings of included studies (e.g., RoB assessment of the included studies); (e) systematically presents all the characteristics or findings of the included studies. 5 Reviews that did not meet all of the above criteria were not considered a SR for this study and were excluded. MA‐only articles were included if it was mentioned that the MA was based on an SR.

SRs and/or MA of primary studies evaluating methodological approaches used in defining review scope and study eligibility, literature search, study selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, data synthesis, and CoE assessment and reporting were included. The methodological approaches examined in these SRs and/or MA can also be related to the substeps or elements of these steps; for example, applying limits on date or type of publication are the elements of literature search. Included SRs examined or compared various aspects of a method or methods, and the associated factors, including but not limited to: precision or effectiveness; accuracy or reliability; impact on the SR and/or MA results; reproducibility of an SR steps or bias occurred; time and/or resource efficiency. SRs assessing the methodological quality of SRs (e.g., adherence to reporting guidelines), evaluating techniques for building search strategies or the use of specific database filters (e.g., use of Boolean operators or search filters for randomized controlled trials), examining various tools used for RoB or CoE assessment (e.g., ROBINS vs. Cochrane RoB tool), or evaluating statistical techniques used in meta‐analyses were excluded. 14

2.2. Search

The search for published SRs was performed on the following scientific databases initially from inception to third week of November 2020 and updated in the last week of February 2022: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and American Psychological Association (APA) PsycINFO. Search was restricted to English language publications. Following the objectives of this study, study design filters within databases were used to restrict the search to SRs and MA, where available. The reference lists of included SRs were also searched for potentially relevant publications.

The search terms included keywords, truncations, and subject headings for the key concepts in the review question: SRs and/or MA, methods, and evaluation. Some of the terms were adopted from the search strategy used in a previous review by Robson et al., which reviewed primary studies on methodological approaches used in study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal steps of SR process. 14 Individual search strategies were developed for respective databases by combining the search terms using appropriate proximity and Boolean operators, along with the related subject headings in order to identify SRs and/or MA. 16 , 17 A senior librarian was consulted in the design of the search terms and strategy. Appendix A presents the detailed search strategies for all five databases.

2.3. Study selection and data extraction

Title and abstract screening of references were performed in three steps. First, one reviewer (PV) screened all the titles and excluded obviously irrelevant citations, for example, articles on topics not related to SRs, non‐SR publications (such as randomized controlled trials, observational studies, scoping reviews, etc.). Next, from the remaining citations, a random sample of 200 titles and abstracts were screened against the predefined eligibility criteria by two reviewers (PV and MM), independently, in duplicate. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus. This step ensured that the responses of the two reviewers were calibrated for consistency in the application of the eligibility criteria in the screening process. Finally, all the remaining titles and abstracts were reviewed by a single “calibrated” reviewer (PV) to identify potential full‐text records. Full‐text screening was performed by at least two authors independently (PV screened all the records, and duplicate assessment was conducted by MM, HC, or MG), with discrepancies resolved via discussions or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data related to review characteristics, results, key findings, and conclusions were extracted by at least two reviewers independently (PV performed data extraction for all the reviews and duplicate extraction was performed by AP, HC, or MG).

2.4. Quality assessment of included reviews

The quality assessment of the included SRs was performed using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). The tool consists of a 16‐item checklist addressing critical and noncritical domains. 18 For the purpose of this study, the domain related to MA was reclassified from critical to noncritical, as SRs with and without MA were included. The other six critical domains were used according to the tool guidelines. 18 Two reviewers (PV and AP) independently responded to each of the 16 items in the checklist with either “yes,” “partial yes,” or “no.” Based on the interpretations of the critical and noncritical domains, the overall quality of the review was rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low. 18 Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

2.5. Data synthesis

To provide an understandable summary of existing evidence syntheses, characteristics of the methods evaluated in the included SRs were examined and key findings were categorized and presented based on the corresponding step in the SR process. The categories of key elements within each step were discussed and agreed by the authors. Results of the included reviews were tabulated and summarized descriptively, along with a discussion on any overlap in the primary studies. 15 No quantitative analyses of the data were performed.

From 41,556 unique citations identified through literature search, 50 full‐text records were reviewed, and nine systematic reviews 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion. The flow of studies through the screening process is presented in Figure  1 . A list of excluded studies with reasons can be found in Appendix B .

Study selection flowchart

3.1. Characteristics of included reviews

Table  1 summarizes the characteristics of included SRs. The majority of the included reviews (six of nine) were published after 2010. 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Four of the nine included SRs were Cochrane reviews. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 The number of databases searched in the reviews ranged from 2 to 14, 2 reviews searched gray literature sources, 24 , 25 and 7 reviews included a supplementary search strategy to identify relevant literature. 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 Three of the included SRs (all Cochrane reviews) included an integrated MA. 20 , 21 , 23

Characteristics of included studies

SR = systematic review; MA = meta‐analysis; RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial; N/R = not reported.

The included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches (26 in total) used across five steps in the SR process; 8 SRs evaluated 6 approaches, 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 while 1 review evaluated 18 approaches. 14 Exclusion of gray or unpublished literature 21 , 26 and blinding of reviewers for RoB assessment 14 , 23 were evaluated in two reviews each. Included SRs evaluated methods used in five different steps in the SR process, including methods used in defining the scope of review ( n  = 3), literature search ( n  = 3), study selection ( n  = 2), data extraction ( n  = 1), and RoB assessment ( n  = 2) (Table  2 ).

Summary of findings from review evaluating systematic review methods

There was some overlap in the primary studies evaluated in the included SRs on the same topics: Schmucker et al. 26 and Hopewell et al. 21 ( n  = 4), Hopewell et al. 20 and Crumley et al. 19 ( n  = 30), and Robson et al. 14 and Morissette et al. 23 ( n  = 4). There were no conflicting results between any of the identified SRs on the same topic.

3.2. Methodological quality of included reviews

Overall, the quality of the included reviews was assessed as moderate at best (Table  2 ). The most common critical weakness in the reviews was failure to provide justification for excluding individual studies (four reviews). Detailed quality assessment is provided in Appendix C .

3.3. Evidence on systematic review methods

3.3.1. methods for defining review scope and eligibility.

Two SRs investigated the effect of excluding data obtained from gray or unpublished sources on the pooled effect estimates of MA. 21 , 26 Hopewell et al. 21 reviewed five studies that compared the impact of gray literature on the results of a cohort of MA of RCTs in health care interventions. Gray literature was defined as information published in “print or electronic sources not controlled by commercial or academic publishers.” Findings showed an overall greater treatment effect for published trials than trials reported in gray literature. In a more recent review, Schmucker et al. 26 addressed similar objectives, by investigating gray and unpublished data in medicine. In addition to gray literature, defined similar to the previous review by Hopewell et al., the authors also evaluated unpublished data—defined as “supplemental unpublished data related to published trials, data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration  or other regulatory websites or postmarketing analyses hidden from the public.” The review found that in majority of the MA, excluding gray literature had little or no effect on the pooled effect estimates. The evidence was limited to conclude if the data from gray and unpublished literature had an impact on the conclusions of MA. 26

Morrison et al. 24 examined five studies measuring the effect of excluding non‐English language RCTs on the summary treatment effects of SR‐based MA in various fields of conventional medicine. Although none of the included studies reported major difference in the treatment effect estimates between English only and non‐English inclusive MA, the review found inconsistent evidence regarding the methodological and reporting quality of English and non‐English trials. 24 As such, there might be a risk of introducing “language bias” when excluding non‐English language RCTs. The authors also noted that the numbers of non‐English trials vary across medical specialties, as does the impact of these trials on MA results. Based on these findings, Morrison et al. 24 conclude that literature searches must include non‐English studies when resources and time are available to minimize the risk of introducing “language bias.”

3.3.2. Methods for searching studies

Crumley et al. 19 analyzed recall (also referred to as “sensitivity” by some researchers; defined as “percentage of relevant studies identified by the search”) and precision (defined as “percentage of studies identified by the search that were relevant”) when searching a single resource to identify randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, as opposed to searching multiple resources. The studies included in their review frequently compared a MEDLINE only search with the search involving a combination of other resources. The review found low median recall estimates (median values between 24% and 92%) and very low median precisions (median values between 0% and 49%) for most of the electronic databases when searched singularly. 19 A between‐database comparison, based on the type of search strategy used, showed better recall and precision for complex and Cochrane Highly Sensitive search strategies (CHSSS). In conclusion, the authors emphasize that literature searches for trials in SRs must include multiple sources. 19

In an SR comparing handsearching and electronic database searching, Hopewell et al. 20 found that handsearching retrieved more relevant RCTs (retrieval rate of 92%−100%) than searching in a single electronic database (retrieval rates of 67% for PsycINFO/PsycLIT, 55% for MEDLINE, and 49% for Embase). The retrieval rates varied depending on the quality of handsearching, type of electronic search strategy used (e.g., simple, complex or CHSSS), and type of trial reports searched (e.g., full reports, conference abstracts, etc.). The authors concluded that handsearching was particularly important in identifying full trials published in nonindexed journals and in languages other than English, as well as those published as abstracts and letters. 20

The effectiveness of checking reference lists to retrieve additional relevant studies for an SR was investigated by Horsley et al. 22 The review reported that checking reference lists yielded 2.5%–40% more studies depending on the quality and comprehensiveness of the electronic search used. The authors conclude that there is some evidence, although from poor quality studies, to support use of checking reference lists to supplement database searching. 22

3.3.3. Methods for selecting studies

Three approaches relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers involved in the screening process were highlighted in an SR by Robson et al. 14 Based on the retrieved evidence, the authors recommended that two independent, experienced, and unblinded reviewers be involved in study selection. 14 A modified approach has also been suggested by the review authors, where one reviewer screens and the other reviewer verifies the list of excluded studies, when the resources are limited. It should be noted however this suggestion is likely based on the authors’ opinion, as there was no evidence related to this from the studies included in the review.

Robson et al. 14 also reported two methods describing the use of technology for screening studies: use of Google Translate for translating languages (for example, German language articles to English) to facilitate screening was considered a viable method, while using two computer monitors for screening did not increase the screening efficiency in SR. Title‐first screening was found to be more efficient than simultaneous screening of titles and abstracts, although the gain in time with the former method was lesser than the latter. Therefore, considering that the search results are routinely exported as titles and abstracts, Robson et al. 14 recommend screening titles and abstracts simultaneously. However, the authors note that these conclusions were based on very limited number (in most instances one study per method) of low‐quality studies. 14

3.3.4. Methods for data extraction

Robson et al. 14 examined three approaches for data extraction relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers (similar to the study selection step). Although based on limited evidence from a small number of studies, the authors recommended use of two experienced and unblinded reviewers for data extraction. The experience of the reviewers was suggested to be especially important when extracting continuous outcomes (or quantitative) data. However, when the resources are limited, data extraction by one reviewer and a verification of the outcomes data by a second reviewer was recommended.

As for the methods involving use of technology, Robson et al. 14 identified limited evidence on the use of two monitors to improve the data extraction efficiency and computer‐assisted programs for graphical data extraction. However, use of Google Translate for data extraction in non‐English articles was not considered to be viable. 14 In the same review, Robson et al. 14 identified evidence supporting contacting authors for obtaining additional relevant data.

3.3.5. Methods for RoB assessment

Two SRs examined the impact of blinding of reviewers for RoB assessments. 14 , 23 Morissette et al. 23 investigated the mean differences between the blinded and unblinded RoB assessment scores and found inconsistent differences among the included studies providing no definitive conclusions. Similar conclusions were drawn in a more recent review by Robson et al., 14 which included four studies on reviewer blinding for RoB assessment that completely overlapped with Morissette et al. 23

Use of experienced reviewers and provision of additional guidance for RoB assessment were examined by Robson et al. 14 The review concluded that providing intensive training and guidance on assessing studies reporting insufficient data to the reviewers improves RoB assessments. 14 Obtaining additional data related to quality assessment by contacting study authors was also found to help the RoB assessments, although based on limited evidence. When assessing the qualitative or mixed method reviews, Robson et al. 14 recommends the use of a structured RoB tool as opposed to an unstructured tool. No SRs were identified on data synthesis and CoE assessment and reporting steps.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. summary of findings.

Nine SRs examining 24 unique methods used across five steps in the SR process were identified in this overview. The collective evidence supports some current traditional and modified SR practices, while challenging other approaches. However, the quality of the included reviews was assessed to be moderate at best and in the majority of the included SRs, evidence related to the evaluated methods was obtained from very limited numbers of primary studies. As such, the interpretations from these SRs should be made cautiously.

The evidence gathered from the included SRs corroborate a few current SR approaches. 5 For example, it is important to search multiple resources for identifying relevant trials (RCTs and/or CCTs). The resources must include a combination of electronic database searching, handsearching, and reference lists of retrieved articles. 5 However, no SRs have been identified that evaluated the impact of the number of electronic databases searched. A recent study by Halladay et al. 27 found that articles on therapeutic intervention, retrieved by searching databases other than PubMed (including Embase), contributed only a small amount of information to the MA and also had a minimal impact on the MA results. The authors concluded that when the resources are limited and when large number of studies are expected to be retrieved for the SR or MA, PubMed‐only search can yield reliable results. 27

Findings from the included SRs also reiterate some methodological modifications currently employed to “expedite” the SR process. 10 , 11 For example, excluding non‐English language trials and gray/unpublished trials from MA have been shown to have minimal or no impact on the results of MA. 24 , 26 However, the efficiency of these SR methods, in terms of time and the resources used, have not been evaluated in the included SRs. 24 , 26 Of the SRs included, only two have focused on the aspect of efficiency 14 , 25 ; O'Mara‐Eves et al. 25 report some evidence to support the use of text‐mining approaches for title and abstract screening in order to increase the rate of screening. Moreover, only one included SR 14 considered primary studies that evaluated reliability (inter‐ or intra‐reviewer consistency) and accuracy (validity when compared against a “gold standard” method) of the SR methods. This can be attributed to the limited number of primary studies that evaluated these outcomes when evaluating the SR methods. 14 Lack of outcome measures related to reliability, accuracy, and efficiency precludes making definitive recommendations on the use of these methods/modifications. Future research studies must focus on these outcomes.

Some evaluated methods may be relevant to multiple steps; for example, exclusions based on publication status (gray/unpublished literature) and language of publication (non‐English language studies) can be outlined in the a priori eligibility criteria or can be incorporated as search limits in the search strategy. SRs included in this overview focused on the effect of study exclusions on pooled treatment effect estimates or MA conclusions. Excluding studies from the search results, after conducting a comprehensive search, based on different eligibility criteria may yield different results when compared to the results obtained when limiting the search itself. 28 Further studies are required to examine this aspect.

Although we acknowledge the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for methodological study designs, we adhered to the Cochrane criteria for identifying SRs in this overview. This was done to ensure consistency in the quality of the included evidence. As a result, we excluded three reviews that did not provide any form of discussion on the quality of the included studies. The methods investigated in these reviews concern supplementary search, 29 data extraction, 12 and screening. 13 However, methods reported in two of these three reviews, by Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al., 13 have also been examined in the SR by Robson et al., 14 which was included in this overview; in most instances (with the exception of one study included in Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al. 13 each), the studies examined in these excluded reviews overlapped with those in the SR by Robson et al. 14

One of the key gaps in the knowledge observed in this overview was the dearth of SRs on the methods used in the data synthesis component of SR. Narrative and quantitative syntheses are the two most commonly used approaches for synthesizing data in evidence synthesis. 5 There are some published studies on the proposed indications and implications of these two approaches. 30 , 31 These studies found that both data synthesis methods produced comparable results and have their own advantages, suggesting that the choice of the method must be based on the purpose of the review. 31 With increasing number of “expedited” SR approaches (so called “rapid reviews”) avoiding MA, 10 , 11 further research studies are warranted in this area to determine the impact of the type of data synthesis on the results of the SR.

4.2. Implications for future research

The findings of this overview highlight several areas of paucity in primary research and evidence synthesis on SR methods. First, no SRs were identified on methods used in two important components of the SR process, including data synthesis and CoE and reporting. As for the included SRs, a limited number of evaluation studies have been identified for several methods. This indicates that further research is required to corroborate many of the methods recommended in current SR guidelines. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Second, some SRs evaluated the impact of methods on the results of quantitative synthesis and MA conclusions. Future research studies must also focus on the interpretations of SR results. 28 , 32 Finally, most of the included SRs were conducted on specific topics related to the field of health care, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other areas. It is important that future research studies evaluating evidence syntheses broaden the objectives and include studies on different topics within the field of health care.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first overview summarizing current evidence from SRs and MA on different methodological approaches used in several fundamental steps in SR conduct. The overview methodology followed well established guidelines and strict criteria defined for the inclusion of SRs.

There are several limitations related to the nature of the included reviews. Evidence for most of the methods investigated in the included reviews was derived from a limited number of primary studies. Also, the majority of the included SRs may be considered outdated as they were published (or last updated) more than 5 years ago 33 ; only three of the nine SRs have been published in the last 5 years. 14 , 25 , 26 Therefore, important and recent evidence related to these topics may not have been included. Substantial numbers of included SRs were conducted in the field of health, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some method evaluations in the included SRs focused on quantitative analyses components and MA conclusions only. As such, the applicability of these findings to SR more broadly is still unclear. 28 Considering the methodological nature of our overview, limiting the inclusion of SRs according to the Cochrane criteria might have resulted in missing some relevant evidence from those reviews without a quality assessment component. 12 , 13 , 29 Although the included SRs performed some form of quality appraisal of the included studies, most of them did not use a standardized RoB tool, which may impact the confidence in their conclusions. Due to the type of outcome measures used for the method evaluations in the primary studies and the included SRs, some of the identified methods have not been validated against a reference standard.

Some limitations in the overview process must be noted. While our literature search was exhaustive covering five bibliographic databases and supplementary search of reference lists, no gray sources or other evidence resources were searched. Also, the search was primarily conducted in health databases, which might have resulted in missing SRs published in other fields. Moreover, only English language SRs were included for feasibility. As the literature search retrieved large number of citations (i.e., 41,556), the title and abstract screening was performed by a single reviewer, calibrated for consistency in the screening process by another reviewer, owing to time and resource limitations. These might have potentially resulted in some errors when retrieving and selecting relevant SRs. The SR methods were grouped based on key elements of each recommended SR step, as agreed by the authors. This categorization pertains to the identified set of methods and should be considered subjective.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process. Limited evidence was also identified on some methodological modifications currently used to expedite the SR process. Overall, findings highlight the dearth of SRs on SR methodologies, warranting further work to confirm several current recommendations on conventional and expedited SR processes.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

APPENDIX A: Detailed search strategies

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first author is supported by a La Trobe University Full Fee Research Scholarship and a Graduate Research Scholarship.

Open Access Funding provided by La Trobe University.

Veginadu P, Calache H, Gussy M, Pandian A, Masood M. An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews . J Evid Based Med . 2022; 15 :39–54. 10.1111/jebm.12468 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

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

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• For authors
• New editors
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Online First
• Effectiveness of exercise-based sports injury prevention programmes in reducing injury rates in adolescents and their implementation in the community: a mixed-methods systematic review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2026-8745 Zhe Xin Zhang 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6336-7137 Joseph Lai 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7976-668X Liang Shen 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7083-7242 Lingaraj Krishna 4 , 5
• 1 Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies , National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine , Singapore
• 2 National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine , Singapore
• 3 Biostatistics Unit , National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine , Singapore
• 4 Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery Partners Pte Ltd , Singapore
• 5 Division of Sports, Shoulder & Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , National University Hospital , Singapore
• Correspondence to Zhe Xin Zhang, Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore; zhexinnn{at}gmail.com

Objective Despite evidence supporting the efficacy of sport injury prevention programmes (SIPPs) in adolescents, implementation of SIPPs in community settings is low. This review aims to synthesise and integrate evidence on the efficacy of exercise-based SIPPs in reducing injury rates in adolescents with implementation strategies for such programmes in the community.

Design A systematic review with meta-analysis, narrative synthesis and meta-aggregation was conducted, followed by a convergent segregated approach to integrate the findings. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Study appraisal was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Data sources Literature search of nine databases was carried out to identify studies in English from January 2012 to December 2022.

Eligibility criteria Included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), qualitative or mixed-methods studies. Population included adolescents (10–19 years). Interventions included SIPPs. Outcomes were injury rate and rate ratio (IRR). Phenomena of interest were facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SIPPs.

Results 23 studies were included for analysis. Meta-analysis for 16 RCTs showed a protective effect of SIPP (IRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.74, p<0.00001) in adolescents. Meta-aggregation of seven qualitative/mixed-method studies revealed four sets of synthesised findings that impact implementation namely players’ perceptions and beliefs, coaches as key facilitators, organisational support and characteristics of the SIPP.

Conclusion Implementation of SIPPs provides a 37% risk reduction in adolescents but requires targeting key stakeholders through a top-down multifaceted approach for its efficacy to be translated. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of SIPPs and implementation strategies in adolescents in community settings.

• Sporting injuries
• Preventive Medicine
• Athletic Injuries

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-107717

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

Sports injury prevention programmes (SIPPs) are efficacious in reducing injury rates in children and adolescents, but the adoption and sustainability of SIPPs in the community remain low.

SIPP implementation in adolescents is complex, and research is needed to better understand the implementation context and promote evidence translation.

WHAT ARE THE NEW FINDINGS

This is the first review to synthesise qualitative evidence specifically regarding implementation of SIPPs in adolescents. Corroborating findings with results from quantitative analysis showing a 37% overall sports injury risk reduction reveals that key stakeholders at multiple ecological levels (organisations, coaches and players) need to be engaged to drive implementation in the community. The adaptability and user-friendliness of SIPPs also play a key role.

Due to the hierarchy of responsibility among stakeholders involved in adolescent SIPP implementation, a top-down approach to implementation would be most optimal, beginning at organisations that are best positioned to support and drive change and have downstream effects on other stakeholders.

Future studies should use findings from this paper to develop and apply implementation strategies targeted at key stakeholders and evaluate the effectiveness of SIPPs in community settings using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance Sports Setting Matrix (RE-AIM SSM).

Introduction

Rise in popularity of sports from younger age.

Active participation in sports from young both recreationally and competitively is increasing worldwide, becoming an integral part of the life of many adolescents. 1 2 This is shown to also translate to a higher level of physical activity (PA) when older, promoting a lifelong active lifestyle. 3 Living a physically active lifestyle from young brings important immediate and long-term health benefits such as better cardiorespiratory and mental health while improving neuromuscular fitness and decreasing future risk of chronic diseases. 4–6

However, this is associated with an increased risk of sports injuries where the risk is highest during adolescence (ages 10–19). 7 8 Sports and PA are also the leading causes of injury in adolescents, accounting for >30% of all adolescents’ injuries compared with just 9% of injuries in adults. 6 9 The increased intensity and frequency of sports training and competition from young in recent years contribute to this higher sports injury rate in adolescents. 10

Sports injuries are associated with an increased risk of physical and psychosocial health issues. 7 11 Current and future participation in sports and PA decreases as a result, which leads to the loss of health benefits that come with an active lifestyle. 7 12 There are also substantial economic and individual consequences due to high costs of treatment and opportunity costs from possible extensive periods of immobility. 13 On a societal level, an increased burden is placed on public healthcare due to the higher volume of hospitalisation and the various resources required for injury treatment. 14 Hence, finding ways to reduce the sports injury rate in adolescents is of utmost priority. 4

Importance of starting sports injury prevention from adolescence

Emery et al 6 suggest that while it is not possible to entirely prevent sports injuries in adolescents, effective exercise-based Sports Injury Prevention Programmes (SIPPs) can reduce the rate and severity of sports injuries. This has many downstream benefits like reducing the various costs mentioned. 11 15 Injury prevention efforts are also recommended by Myer et al 16 to be started from adolescence to maximise efficacy as it was discovered in their meta-analysis that the age of the athlete affects the efficacy of SIPPs in reducing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries.

Rationale for this mixed-methods review

While there are four similar reviews on the efficacy of SIPP in reducing injury rates involving adolescents, there are some key differences from this review in terms of the target population. 4 6 11 17 This review looks at adolescents only in all sports but the reviews by Ding et al 17 and Rössler et al 4 looked at not only adolescents but children too, while Soomro et al 11 and Emery et al 6 limited studies to team sports. Ding et al 17 also restricted SIPP to warm-up exercises only.

Despite the multitude of scientific evidence collated in the systematic reviews supporting the efficacy of SIPPs in adolescents, implementation in real-world settings and actual public health impact remains limited. 18–20 The injury rate among adolescent athletes continues to rise and many studies have shown that SIPPs are still not part of training routines and sports practices across various populations. 7 21 22

This lack of adoption of SIPPs for adolescents highlights a necessary change in research focus and methods. 20 Understanding the factors that support and inhibit the long-term adoption of SIPPs in target populations from different perspectives by examining qualitative literature is important in influencing behavioural change in adolescents and stakeholders and reducing the research-to-practice gap. 18 19 23 Due to the complexity of sports injury prevention, multiple research questions and an integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence is optimal. 24 A mixed-methods approach broadens the scope of this review compared to previous systematic reviews by Emery et al 6 and Soomro et al 11 , allowing for a more in-depth exploration of injury prevention in adolescents. 25 26 It provides the opportunity to corroborate findings of SIPP efficacy with insights into the barriers and facilitators of SIPP implementation and maintenance, providing more meaningful evidence to inform SIPPs practice and policy in adolescents. 27 To the best of our knowledge, no such review has been conducted before on this topic.

Review objective

The objective of this mixed-methods systematic review is to update and synthesise evidence on the efficacy of exercise-based SIPPs in adolescents while integrating it with research on implementation context for injury prevention to promote evidence translation and improve effectiveness. This review seeks to answer the following review questions:

What is the efficacy of the various exercise-based SIPPs in reducing injury rates in adolescents in the community setting?

What are the facilitators (enablers) and barriers to the implementation of SIPPs in adolescents in the community setting?

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews and reported following the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. 28 29 The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD 42023403096).

Information sources and search strategy

A search of six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus and Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant studies from January 2012 to December 2022. Google Scholar, ProQuest Thesis and Dissertations and ISRTCN were searched for grey literature. The reference list of all selected studies was also screened for additional studies not previously identified. Keywords and index terms were broken down into three groups: population, injury type and intervention, and used to develop full search strategies for each database which can be found in online supplemental file 2:appendix A .

Supplemental material

Selection of studies.

Inclusion criteria for quantitative component:

Participants were between 10 and 19 years old and participated in sports. 8

SIPPs are exercise based and implemented across a minimum period of 3 months. 30

Investigated outcomes related to sports injury (injury rate/ratio (IRR) or total number of injuries).

Controls were either usual training/warmups, alternative forms of injury prevention or no intervention.

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as it is the most ideal to examine the cause-and-effect relationship between interventions and measured outcomes. 31

Studies were excluded if adolescent age-group outcomes were unable to be separately extracted or incomplete.

Inclusion criteria for qualitative component:

Studies that investigated barriers and facilitators in sports injury prevention in adolescents.

Is in the community setting.

Qualitative studies with study designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and qualitative descriptive. Mixed-methods studies where qualitative component can be clearly extracted.

Only English language studies were included due to the lack of reviewer proficiency in other languages and resource limitations. Since there were previous meta-analyses on the efficacy of SIPP in adolescents, 6 11 and it is only in the past decade that research emphasis has been placed on understanding the implementation of sports injury prevention, 32–34 only studies published from 2012 to 2022 were included to retrieve the most current evidence of SIPPs efficacy and insights into its implementation for adolescents.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Quantitative data extracted included specific details about the populations, intervention characteristics and outcomes of relevance to review objective ( online supplemental file 2:appendix C ). Extracted qualitative data (findings) with their corresponding illustrations were assigned a level of credibility (‘unequivocal’, ‘credible’ and ‘not supported’) and grouped into themes. Authors of papers were contacted for additional or missing data, where required.

Assessment of selected studies was done independently by two reviewers (ZXZ and JL) using the standardised JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists for RCTs and qualitative studies. 35 36 The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) tool was used for mixed-methods studies instead as JBI does not have a critical appraisal tool for it. 37 Disagreements regarding appraisal were resolved through discussion between both reviewers and with a third reviewer (LK) when consensus could not be reached. All studies, regardless of methodological quality, underwent data extraction and synthesis to consolidate all available evidence to enhance the rigour of the synthesis and provide further insights into sports injury prevention. 38 39

Data analyses and synthesis

A mixed-methods convergent segregated approach was used for synthesis and integration. 28 Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was done separately followed by integration of the resultant quantitative and qualitative evidence ( online supplemental file 2:appendix D ).

Quantitative synthesis

Study data were pooled with statistical meta-analysis using RevMan V.5.4. IRR with 95% CIs was used to measure the effect size of each study. Natural logarithmic transformation of all IRR was conducted and the generic inverse variance random-effects model was used for the statistical analysis. 40 Narrative synthesis was used to present outcomes when meta-analysis was not possible.

Subgroup analyses based on session duration, implementation strategies, intervention type, intervention focus and player compliance were conducted to help examine sources of heterogeneity and identify potentially influential moderating factors on the efficacy of SIPP. 41 Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to examine the source of heterogeneity. A funnel plot was generated using RevMan to assess publication bias.

Qualitative synthesis

Qualitative findings were pooled using the meta-aggregation approach that involves an iterative approach of categorising findings based on similarity in meaning. 25 These categories were subsequently synthesised to produce a comprehensive set of synthesised findings to be used as the basis for evidence integration. 42

Integration of quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence

Through discussion by two reviewers, the quantitative and qualitative evidence was juxtaposed and organised into a line of argument to produce an overall configured analysis. 28

Refer to online supplemental file 1:Methods for more detailed methods section.

Study selection

The screening process is depicted in figure 1 using the PRISMA flow diagram. 29 An initial search yielded 9681 articles after duplicate records were removed. 9288 records were excluded based on title and 186 records based on abstracts when screened against the eligibility criteria. Eventually, the full text of 200 articles was retrieved and assessed for inclusion. Finally, 23 articles were included in this review after 177 articles were excluded for various reasons as outlined in figure 1 .

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

PRISMA flow diagram.

Study characteristics

Of the 23 included studies, 16 were RCTs, 43–58 5 were of qualitative methodology 59–63 and 2 were mixed-methods studies. 64 65 A table summary of all the studies and their characteristics can be found in online supplemental file 2:appendix D . Among the 16 RCTs (1 is a 3-arm RCT), 9 of them looked at preventing all injuries, 2 focused on upper extremity and 6 on lower extremity injuries. In terms of SIPP content type, 12 of the studies featured comprehensive (multifaceted) SIPPs that contain a mixture of balance, plyometric, strength and neuromuscular control exercises while the other 5 were single-component SIPPs like stretching, strengthening or proprioception exercises only. Only three studies had a subanalysis on the effect of SIPP compliance on injury rates. Out of the seven qualitative and mixed-methods studies, six used either an implementation science framework or behavioural change model.

Methodological quality

Summary tables of the critical appraisal using JBI checklists and MMAT for the respective studies are presented in online supplemental file 2:appendix E . For the RCTs, blinding for researchers and participants (Q4 and 5) was either unclear or not done for almost all the studies (87.5%). However, failure to blind is unlikely to affect the objective outcomes for SIPP studies as it is known that true researcher and participant blinding is incredibly difficult in injury prevention research. 66 67 Blinding of the outcome assessor was done in 8 of the studies while true randomisation was used in 11 of the studies and unclear in the other 5. Allocation concealment was unclear in five of the studies (31.3%).

The methodological quality of all the qualitative and mixed-methods studies is generally very high (all studies >80%). However, most of the qualitative studies did not elaborate on the cultural and theoretical position of the author (80% no or unclear) and authors’ influences on the research (60% no or unclear).

Quantitative evidence: meta-analysis

Forest plot showing the effect of SIPP on IRR of adolescents.

Subgroup analyses

Subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant subgroup differences for player compliance (p=0.52), SIPP session duration (p=0.69), implementation strategies (p=0.38) and SIPP type (p=0.56), likely constrained by the small number of studies and participants in some of the subgroups 68 ( online supplemental file 2:appendix F ).

Forest plot showing subgroup analysis on intervention focus of SIPP.

Sensitivity analysis

Publication bias.

Visual inspection of the funnel plot plotted ( online supplemental file 2:appendix G ) suggested that there is a possibility of publication bias as there is a slight asymmetry. The larger-size studies were clustered symmetrically at the top around the mean effect size line, but it appears that smaller-size studies that show no protective effect of SIPP are missing. 69

Narrative summary

The secondary outcome of investigating the effect of player compliance to SIPP on injury rate was summarised using narrative synthesis as statistical pooling was not possible. Three studies examined this and all concluded that compliance is key to the effectiveness of SIPP in reducing injury rate. 50 55 57 Two of the studies further found that player compliance to SIPP deteriorated significantly over the season and there is a need for research on the effective maintenance and implementation of SIPP. 50 57

Qualitative evidence: meta-aggregation

Four sets of findings were synthesised from meta-aggregation and the process is illustrated in online supplemental file 2:appendix K .

Synthesised Finding 1: players’ perceptions and beliefs influence their motivation to adopt SIPPs

Players are the end-users of SIPP so understanding their perspectives and showing them the importance of SIPP is key to getting them to ‘buy-in’ and be on board with the programme. 59 62 65 Players must have an idea of their susceptibility to injury before they will see the need for and the benefit of such SIPP. 62 64 They often find SIPP boring and irrelevant to their sports and training. 61 65 It often takes personal experience with injury for them to understand and be motivated to adopt it. 60 65 (refer to online supplemental file 2:appendix H )

Synthesised Finding 2: coaches/teachers are the key SIPP deliverers

Coaches and teachers are the key deliverers of SIPP ( table 1 ) as they are the on-the-ground facilitators who spend the most time with the players and have direct influence over them. 62 64 65 Coaches also have full control over the structure of the training programme, so how they carry out the SIPP in training and how much emphasis, effort they put in and time they allocate makes a big difference in the eventual effect of the SIPP. 59 60 For coaches to prioritise SIPP and implement it well, they must be aware of the existence of such programmes, believe in the importance and effectiveness of SIPP for their players and have sufficient self-efficacy to implement SIPP properly. 61–63 Coaches’ motivation directly influences player motivation. 62

• View inline

Synthesised Finding 2

Synthesised Finding 3: organisational commitment and support are crucial to the successful implementation of SIPP

It is crucial that there is a readiness for implementation of SIPP from the top-down where the organisation (club, federation, etc) shows commitment to facilitate the implementation through various ways, such as endorsing the SIPP and making a directive to implement it. 59 64 65 Other ways include actively publicising and promoting SIPP to various stakeholders and providing training and resources for coaches to improve their knowledge and self-efficacy regarding SIPP. 61 62 65 Organisations should also consider making injury prevention education a mandatory part of coaching education to really effect a change in attitude among coaches. 59 64 (refer to online supplemental file 2:appendix I )

Synthesised Finding 4: the characteristics of the SIPP itself influence the adoption and use of the programme

The characteristics of the SIPP also affect its adoption by coaches and players. It is crucial for SIPP to be adaptable and modifiable to suit the needs of different sports and contexts. 63 65 The opportunity for coaches to be creative and integrate SIPP exercises into game drills will make it more fun and engaging. 59 61 64 For SIPP to be attractive, it has to be easy to implement and requires minimum time and effort or any additional resources, lowering the barrier to adopting or implementing it. 59 62 63 (refer to online supplemental file 2:appendix J )

Mixed-methods integration of evidence

Synthesised finding 2 (coaches are key facilitators) and 3 (organisational support is crucial) explained why the demonstrated efficacy of SIPP in reducing injuries found in the main meta-analysis is not translated to practice. 18 All the studies analysed were conducted under RCT conditions which are ideal and highly controlled, where most had experts conducting mandatory prestudy workshops and training for the coaches and players on the proper use of SIPP which is equivalent to organisational support and training to improve knowledge and self-efficacy. 70 This is shown by synthesised findings 2 and 3 to be major facilitators of SIPP implementation. Additional resources like pamphlets and video instructions were also provided to the coaches in many of the studies while some even had physiotherapists to facilitate and provide feedback for sessions. All these were factors identified by the qualitative synthesis to improve the implementation and effectiveness of SIPP but not implemented often enough in practice.

Narrative synthesis finding regarding player compliance is congruent with synthesised finding 1 (players’ perceptions and beliefs) as young adolescent players often do not see the need for SIPP due to their ‘sense of invincibility’ and soon find SIPP boring and irrelevant, explaining the decrease in compliance over the season.

While the subgroup analyses for duration of SIPP and implementation strategies were not statistically significant, there was indication that shorter SIPPs (≤15 min IRR=0.61 vs >15 min IRR=0.66) and those with implementation strategies (workshop+supervision IRR=0.54 vs workshop IRR=0.67 vs no strategy IRR=0.72) were potentially more efficacious ( online supplemental file 2:appendix F ) and is supported by synthesised findings 3 and 4.

This review synthesised findings from 23 studies to examine the efficacy of SIPPs in reducing injury rates in adolescents and understanding the translation of this efficacy to real-world settings. The Translating Research into Injury Prevention Practice (TRIPP) framework is used to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current adolescent sports injury prevention literature and how this mixed-methods systematic review contributes and advances it 71 ( table 2 ). Since the most recent meta-analysis in 2016 by Soomro et al , 11 there have been 13 newly published RCTs. Therefore, the quantitative aspect of our research was performed on the most recent decade of RCTs to include all these RCTs and update TRIPP Stage 4 with the most current evidence on the protective efficacy of all types of exercise-based SIPP in adolescents in all sports. The findings of our research revealed a significant overall protective effect of exercise-based SIPP in adolescents, where the injury rate was reduced by 37%. This is similar to results from previous meta-analyses both on adolescent team sports by Soomro et al 11 (exercise-based SIPPs) and Emery et al 6 (neuromuscular SIPPs), which found an estimated 40% and 36% reduction in all injuries and lower extremity injuries, respectively.

Adapted from Translating Research into Injury Prevention Practice (TRIPP) Framework of Caroline Finch 71 and Emery et al ’s Ecological model 77

When compared with findings from previous related systematic reviews that looked at either different age groups or types of SIPPs, the efficacy of SIPPs demonstrated in reducing injury rates is consistent. For example, the meta-analysis by Ding et al 17 looked at the effectiveness of warm-up-only interventions in reducing sports injuries in adolescents and children in 2021 and found an estimated 36% reduction in injury rate. Likewise, Rössler et al , 4 which combined data from RCT and non-randomised study designs, concluded that exercise-based SIPPs can reduce injuries by around 46%. Therefore, our research reaffirms TRIPP stage 4 evidence on the benefits of long-term application of SIPP on reducing injury rates in adolescents, matching findings from systematic reviews examining that in the general population. 67 72 73

Strong evidence base of TRIPP stage 4 alone is insufficient to change the sports injury landscape in adolescents as RCTs are carried out in highly controlled environments that are not reflective of actual implementation contexts. 70 74 75 For adoption and compliance in the community to improve, there is a need to understand the implementation issues that exist in the specific context, and this is best done through qualitative research on SIPP implementation in adolescents (TRIPP stage 5). 6 32 However, there has not been any reviews that synthesised and consolidated such research and thus, the qualitative aspect of our review fills this gap in the literature.

Using ecological model and TRIPP framework to interpret mixed-methods evidence on SIPPs and improve real-life impact

Akin to numerous implementation science research done on sports injury prevention in the general population, 32 75 76 it is evident from the integrated findings that engagement of various stakeholders at multiple ecological levels is key to improving adoption and maintenance of SIPPs in adolescents. However, for this population, interpretation of the findings should be additionally guided by the ecological model proposed by Emery et al 77 as it incorporates the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and assigns a hierarchy of responsibility for the stakeholders in the implementation of SIPPs ( table 2 ).

Top-down approach is most optimal for SIPP implementation in adolescents

Despite the multitude of evidence supporting the implementation of SIPP in adolescents, there is still a lack of awareness of these SIPPs among coaches and players worldwide, 6 which is the first step of the awareness-to-adherence model by Pathman et al 78 for behaviour change. 75 In this ecological model, adolescents bear the lowest responsibility even though they are the beneficial end-users as they are deemed not cognitively developed enough to take full responsibility for their own safety in sports. 1 In contrast, organisations like national sports governing bodies and clubs at the top of the hierarchy who have the power to effect the most change will bear the most responsibility. Therefore, it is optimal to start from the top (synthesised finding 3) as successful implementation of SIPPs especially in adolescents relies heavily on organisational commitment and structures and resources being put in place to support the delivery of SIPPs.

Organisations are found in several studies included to be best positioned to drive changes to this as they are the ones with the reach to disseminate information and the resources to develop and provide SIPP training, raising awareness of SIPP among the stakeholders. They even have the option to mandate injury prevention training as part of coaching education, along with supporting it with directives that require coaches to implement SIPP as part of training sessions. Such emphasis and commitment to implementation from governing bodies will have downstream effect on all the stakeholders from clubs to coaches (improved awareness and self-efficacy) and the players (SIPP is normalised as part of training), improving implementation. The higher than usual implementation rate of Prep-to-Play PRO in women’s Australian Football 76 and FIFA 11+ in Switzerland soccer clubs 79 where both had the governing organisation’s full commitment and support are some examples of this impact. This is congruent with general implementation research that has long highlighted organisation and leadership as core drivers of effective implementation. 80

Coaches are key delivery agents

In addition, coaches have proven to be key delivery agents of SIPP due to their unparalleled influence over adolescents and their training programmes, consistent with findings from studies on coach education used in the BokSmart Safe Six SIPP. 81 82 A scoping review by Guilfoyle et al 83 on coaches’ role in youth SIPPs supported our findings that coaches’ competency in delivering SIPP (self-efficacy) and their belief in the value of SIPPs (buy-in) are the two main factors that promote the implementation. Therefore, both the literature and our integrated findings found that organisations need to constantly support coaches with resources and trainings like workshops which will not only improve their confidence in delivering SIPP (self-efficacy) but also educate them on importance of SIPPs to create buy-in (behaviour change). 76 84 This helps facilitate sustained implementation. 83 Furthermore, coaches’ willingness to integrate SIPP into training by prioritising and allocating more training time to SIPP will often influence players’ own thoughts and habits in using SIPPs. This aids in their own long-term compliance to SIPP which tends to decrease over a season.

These findings illustrate how a top-down approach starting at organisations will maximise implementation efforts in a target population that is young and impressionable. 85

Nature of SIPP

Outside of the ecological model, the nature of the SIPP is another key factor in the implementation. Coaches in the community for this age group vary greatly in expertise and experience, and also differ in commitment level (from full-time professional to part-time voluntary). 32 86 Hence, it is important for SIPP to be user-friendly and easy to implement where not a lot of resources are required and exercises not too difficult or long. However, it is also important for SIPPs to be adaptable in nature to cater to a range of contexts and different end-users. 32 Adaptability of the exercises allows coaches to adjust and progress according to the evolving needs of the team/individual. It also makes SIPP more engaging when coaches are able to integrate it into drills and game skills which is important as adolescents do not always see the necessity for SIPP and finds it boring.

Strengths and limitations

This review has a few limitations. First, there is rather substantial heterogeneity in the included studies, possibly due to the methodological variations in the nature of participants, outcomes measured due to different definitions of sports injury and types of intervention in the studies included. Moreover, non-English studies were excluded which may have led to potential bias and a date limit of 10 years being set could have excluded some older qualitative studies.

To the best of our knowledge, this review is the first in the field that integrated TRIPP stages 4 and 5 ( table 2 ), 71 corroborating the most rigorous up-to-date scientific evidence on the protective efficacy of SIPP with insights into the specific implementation of SIPP in adolescents, promoting evidence translation. 19

Direction and implications for future research

Since this review has synthesised both TRIPP stages 4 and 5 evidence, it advances adolescent sports injury research to the next stage, which is to focus on implementation science and evaluate the effectiveness of SIPPs in uncontrolled ‘real-world’ settings with implementation strategies applied to obtain more representative results of the impact of SIPPs in reducing injury rates in adolescents. 70 75 This is done through TRIPP stage 6 effectiveness studies that the current literature lacks. 71 Thus, our findings help researchers to develop context-specific implementation strategies in partnership with relevant stakeholders and be used in such studies. 75 TRIPP stage 6 studies should also consider using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance Sports Setting Matrix (RE-AIM SSM) ( table 3 ) as it provides a framework 70 to navigate the complex multilevel nature of SIPP implementation, 75 guide the planning of appropriate strategies and thoroughly evaluate the impact of SIPPs across the entire hierarchy of stakeholders. 70 77 The mixed-methods study by Bruder et al 76 on SIPP for women’s elite Australian Football provides a great example of this.

RE-AIM Sports Setting Matrix (RE-AIM SSM) adapted from Finch and Donaldson 70

Lastly, there should be a development of a consensus statement on the reporting standards for SIPPs where injury definition, exposure monitoring, assessment of outcome etc. are standardised to ensure homogeneity in study design. This would help in identifying moderating factors and a clearer interpretation of results.

The efficacy of SIPP in reducing injury rates in adolescents is reaffirmed by the past decade of research but translation of this efficacy to ‘real-world’ effectiveness is impaired by poor adoption and compliance in the community. 74 Synthesising qualitative findings on the implementation of SIPP in adolescents and integrating it with the quantitative results through the convergent segregated approach provided many valuable insights, indicating that key stakeholders at multiple ecological levels (organisations, coaches, players) need to be engaged to drive implementation. Due to the hierarchy of responsibility for stakeholders involved in adolescent SIPP implementation, employing a top-down approach by targeting organisations (governing bodies) first as they are best positioned to support and drive change, followed by coaches (delivery agents) through increasing competence and buy-in and then players (end-users) would be the most optimal and allows for downstream effects. 23 77 85 Meanwhile, the adaptability and user-friendliness of SIPPs are also crucial in improving implementation. Future effectiveness studies evaluating SIPPs in ‘real-world’ contexts is the last part of the research process in achieving the ultimate goal of improving adoption and maintenance of efficacious SIPP in respective sporting communities to yield the full benefits of SIPPs and thus sports. 71 75

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Siriwan Lim and A/Prof Piyanee Yobas from National University of Singapore (NUS) for their guidance in the conception of this research as thesis advisors and Chan Pao Yi (NUS) for her comments on the manuscript.

• Maffulli N ,
• Hagel B , et al
• Kjønniksen L ,
• Anderssen N ,
• Rössler R ,
• Verhagen E , et al
• Dobbins M ,
• DeCorby K , et al
• Whittaker JL , et al
• Benjaminse A ,
• Robards F ,
• McKenna J , et al
• Sanders R ,
• Hackett D , et al
• Gougoulias N , et al
• Verhagen E ,
• Rommers N , et al
• Sugimoto D ,
• Thomas S , et al
• Smith DM , et al
• Minnig MC ,
• Hawkinson L ,
• Root HJ , et al
• Lininger MR ,
• DiStefano LJ
• Norcross MF ,
• Johnson ST ,
• Bovbjerg VE , et al
• Bruinsma A , et al
• Methods LDM
• Lizarondo L ,
• Carrier J , et al
• Bressan V ,
• Bagnasco A ,
• Aleo G , et al
• Pearson A ,
• Bath-Hextall F , et al
• McKenzie JE ,
• Bossuyt PM , et al
• Clarke GM ,
• Wolters AT , et al
• Hariton E ,
• Locascio JJ
• McLaren SJ ,
• Bolling C ,
• van Mechelen W ,
• Pasman HR , et al
• Donaldson A ,
• Lockwood C ,
• Porritt K ,
• Munn Z , et al
• Tufanaru C ,
• Aromataris E , et al
• Fàbregues S ,
• Bartlett G , et al
• McDonagh M ,
• Peterson K ,
• Raina P , et al
• Stephenson M , et al
• Higgins JP ,
• Altman DG , et al
• Achenbach L ,
• Krutsch V ,
• Weber J , et al
• Åkerlund I ,
• Sonesson S , et al
• Hägglund M ,
• Waldén M , et al
• van den Berg C ,
• Richmond SA , et al
• Farhan AF ,
• J. Stephany M ,
• K. Mahammed S
• Akasaka K ,
• Otsudo T , et al
• Leppänen M ,
• Vasankari T , et al
• Hislop MD ,
• Stokes KA ,
• Williams S , et al
• Loppini M ,
• Berton A , et al
• Owoeye OBA ,
• Akinbo SRA ,
• Tella BA , et al
• Richmond SA ,
• Doyle-Baker PK , et al
• Nakamura E ,
• Suzuki T , et al
• Mizoguchi Y ,
• Kimura F , et al
• Atroshi I ,
• Magnusson H , et al
• Zouita ABM ,
• Kebsi W , et al
• Watkins R ,
• Stokes KA , et al
• Standage M ,
• Hagger MS , et al
• Lindblom H ,
• Carlfjord S ,
• Munoz-Plaza C ,
• Davis A , et al
• Macpherson A , et al
• Ageberg E ,
• Lucander K , et al
• Myklebust G , et al
• Jacobs JC ,
• Kim J , et al
• Lauersen JB ,
• Bertelsen DM ,
• Andersen LB
• Richardson M ,
• Sterne JAC ,
• Donaldson A
• Hübscher M ,
• Pfeifer K , et al
• Aaltonen S ,
• Parkkari J , et al
• Verhagen EALM , et al
• Rauvola RS ,
• Brownson RC
• Bruder AM ,
• Patterson BE ,
• Crossley KM , et al
• Morrongiello BA
• Pathman DE ,
• Konrad TR ,
• Freed GL , et al
• Lamprecht M ,
• Stamm H , et al
• Bertram R ,
• Gardner-Lubbe S ,
• Lambert MI , et al
• Lambert M , et al
• Guilfoyle L ,
• O’Sullivan K , et al
• McGlashan AJ ,
• Didymus FF ,

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2

Contributors ZXZ conceived the systematic review and was responsible for the planning, data search, data extraction, appraisal of studies, data analysis and writing of manuscript and is the guarantor. JL contributed to the data search, data extraction, appraisal of studies and writing of manuscript. LS contributed to the data analysis and interpretation of the data. LK participated in the appraisal of studies, interpretation of the data and writing of manuscript.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Developing a survey to measure nursing students’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, influences, and willingness to be involved in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD): a mixed method modified e-Delphi study

• Jocelyn Schroeder 1 ,
• Barbara Pesut 1 , 2 ,
• Lise Olsen 2 ,
• Nelly D. Oelke 2 &
• Helen Sharp 2  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  326 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

31 Accesses

Metrics details

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016. Canada’s legislation is the first to permit Nurse Practitioners (NP) to serve as independent MAiD assessors and providers. Registered Nurses’ (RN) also have important roles in MAiD that include MAiD care coordination; client and family teaching and support, MAiD procedural quality; healthcare provider and public education; and bereavement care for family. Nurses have a right under the law to conscientious objection to participating in MAiD. Therefore, it is essential to prepare nurses in their entry-level education for the practice implications and moral complexities inherent in this practice. Knowing what nursing students think about MAiD is a critical first step. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a survey to measure nursing students’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, influences, and willingness to be involved in MAiD in the Canadian context.

The design was a mixed-method, modified e-Delphi method that entailed item generation from the literature, item refinement through a 2 round survey of an expert faculty panel, and item validation through a cognitive focus group interview with nursing students. The settings were a University located in an urban area and a College located in a rural area in Western Canada.

During phase 1, a 56-item survey was developed from existing literature that included demographic items and items designed to measure experience with death and dying (including MAiD), education and preparation, attitudes and beliefs, influences on those beliefs, and anticipated future involvement. During phase 2, an expert faculty panel reviewed, modified, and prioritized the items yielding 51 items. During phase 3, a sample of nursing students further evaluated and modified the language in the survey to aid readability and comprehension. The final survey consists of 45 items including 4 case studies.

Systematic evaluation of knowledge-to-date coupled with stakeholder perspectives supports robust survey design. This study yielded a survey to assess nursing students’ attitudes toward MAiD in a Canadian context.

The survey is appropriate for use in education and research to measure knowledge and attitudes about MAiD among nurse trainees and can be a helpful step in preparing nursing students for entry-level practice.

Peer Review reports

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is permitted under an amendment to Canada’s Criminal Code which was passed in 2016 [ 1 ]. MAiD is defined in the legislation as both self-administered and clinician-administered medication for the purpose of causing death. In the 2016 Bill C-14 legislation one of the eligibility criteria was that an applicant for MAiD must have a reasonably foreseeable natural death although this term was not defined. It was left to the clinical judgement of MAiD assessors and providers to determine the time frame that constitutes reasonably foreseeable [ 2 ]. However, in 2021 under Bill C-7, the eligibility criteria for MAiD were changed to allow individuals with irreversible medical conditions, declining health, and suffering, but whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable, to receive MAiD [ 3 ]. This population of MAiD applicants are referred to as Track 2 MAiD (those whose natural death is foreseeable are referred to as Track 1). Track 2 applicants are subject to additional safeguards under the 2021 C-7 legislation.

Three additional proposed changes to the legislation have been extensively studied by Canadian Expert Panels (Council of Canadian Academics [CCA]) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ] First, under the legislation that defines Track 2, individuals with mental disease as their sole underlying medical condition may apply for MAiD, but implementation of this practice is embargoed until March 2027 [ 4 ]. Second, there is consideration of allowing MAiD to be implemented through advanced consent. This would make it possible for persons living with dementia to receive MAID after they have lost the capacity to consent to the procedure [ 5 ]. Third, there is consideration of extending MAiD to mature minors. A mature minor is defined as “a person under the age of majority…and who has the capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of a decision” ([ 6 ] p. 5). In summary, since the legalization of MAiD in 2016 the eligibility criteria and safeguards have evolved significantly with consequent implications for nurses and nursing care. Further, the number of Canadians who access MAiD shows steady increases since 2016 [ 7 ] and it is expected that these increases will continue in the foreseeable future.

Nurses have been integral to MAiD care in the Canadian context. While other countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands also permit euthanasia, Canada is the first country to allow Nurse Practitioners (Registered Nurses with additional preparation typically achieved at the graduate level) to act independently as assessors and providers of MAiD [ 1 ]. Although the role of Registered Nurses (RNs) in MAiD is not defined in federal legislation, it has been addressed at the provincial/territorial-level with variability in scope of practice by region [ 8 , 9 ]. For example, there are differences with respect to the obligation of the nurse to provide information to patients about MAiD, and to the degree that nurses are expected to ensure that patient eligibility criteria and safeguards are met prior to their participation [ 10 ]. Studies conducted in the Canadian context indicate that RNs perform essential roles in MAiD care coordination; client and family teaching and support; MAiD procedural quality; healthcare provider and public education; and bereavement care for family [ 9 , 11 ]. Nurse practitioners and RNs are integral to a robust MAiD care system in Canada and hence need to be well-prepared for their role [ 12 ].

Previous studies have found that end of life care, and MAiD specifically, raise complex moral and ethical issues for nurses [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. The knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of nurses are important across practice settings because nurses have consistent, ongoing, and direct contact with patients who experience chronic or life-limiting health conditions. Canadian studies exploring nurses’ moral and ethical decision-making in relation to MAiD reveal that although some nurses are clear in their support for, or opposition to, MAiD, others are unclear on what they believe to be good and right [ 14 ]. Empirical findings suggest that nurses go through a period of moral sense-making that is often informed by their family, peers, and initial experiences with MAID [ 17 , 18 ]. Canadian legislation and policy specifies that nurses are not required to participate in MAiD and may recuse themselves as conscientious objectors with appropriate steps to ensure ongoing and safe care of patients [ 1 , 19 ]. However, with so many nurses having to reflect on and make sense of their moral position, it is essential that they are given adequate time and preparation to make an informed and thoughtful decision before they participate in a MAID death [ 20 , 21 ].

It is well established that nursing students receive inconsistent exposure to end of life care issues [ 22 ] and little or no training related to MAiD [ 23 ]. Without such education and reflection time in pre-entry nursing preparation, nurses are at significant risk for moral harm. An important first step in providing this preparation is to be able to assess the knowledge, values, and beliefs of nursing students regarding MAID and end of life care. As demand for MAiD increases along with the complexities of MAiD, it is critical to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and likelihood of engagement with MAiD among nursing students as a baseline upon which to build curriculum and as a means to track these variables over time.

Aim, design, and setting

The aim of this study was to develop a survey to measure nursing students’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, influences, and willingness to be involved in MAiD in the Canadian context. We sought to explore both their willingness to be involved in the registered nursing role and in the nurse practitioner role should they chose to prepare themselves to that level of education. The design was a mixed-method, modified e-Delphi method that entailed item generation, item refinement through an expert faculty panel [ 24 , 25 , 26 ], and initial item validation through a cognitive focus group interview with nursing students [ 27 ]. The settings were a University located in an urban area and a College located in a rural area in Western Canada.

Participants

A panel of 10 faculty from the two nursing education programs were recruited for Phase 2 of the e-Delphi. To be included, faculty were required to have a minimum of three years of experience in nurse education, be employed as nursing faculty, and self-identify as having experience with MAiD. A convenience sample of 5 fourth-year nursing students were recruited to participate in Phase 3. Students had to be in good standing in the nursing program and be willing to share their experiences of the survey in an online group interview format.

The modified e-Delphi was conducted in 3 phases: Phase 1 entailed item generation through literature and existing survey review. Phase 2 entailed item refinement through a faculty expert panel review with focus on content validity, prioritization, and revision of item wording [ 25 ]. Phase 3 entailed an assessment of face validity through focus group-based cognitive interview with nursing students.

Phase I. Item generation through literature review

The goal of phase 1 was to develop a bank of survey items that would represent the variables of interest and which could be provided to expert faculty in Phase 2. Initial survey items were generated through a literature review of similar surveys designed to assess knowledge and attitudes toward MAiD/euthanasia in healthcare providers; Canadian empirical studies on nurses’ roles and/or experiences with MAiD; and legislative and expert panel documents that outlined proposed changes to the legislative eligibility criteria and safeguards. The literature review was conducted in three online databases: CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Medline. Key words for the search included nurses , nursing students , medical students , NPs, MAiD , euthanasia , assisted death , and end-of-life care . Only articles written in English were reviewed. The legalization and legislation of MAiD is new in many countries; therefore, studies that were greater than twenty years old were excluded, no further exclusion criteria set for country.

Items from surveys designed to measure similar variables in other health care providers and geographic contexts were placed in a table and similar items were collated and revised into a single item. Then key variables were identified from the empirical literature on nurses and MAiD in Canada and checked against the items derived from the surveys to ensure that each of the key variables were represented. For example, conscientious objection has figured prominently in the Canadian literature, but there were few items that assessed knowledge of conscientious objection in other surveys and so items were added [ 15 , 21 , 28 , 29 ]. Finally, four case studies were added to the survey to address the anticipated changes to the Canadian legislation. The case studies were based upon the inclusion of mature minors, advanced consent, and mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition. The intention was to assess nurses’ beliefs and comfort with these potential legislative changes.

Phase 2. Item refinement through expert panel review

The goal of phase 2 was to refine and prioritize the proposed survey items identified in phase 1 using a modified e-Delphi approach to achieve consensus among an expert panel [ 26 ]. Items from phase 1 were presented to an expert faculty panel using a Qualtrics (Provo, UT) online survey. Panel members were asked to review each item to determine if it should be: included, excluded or adapted for the survey. When adapted was selected faculty experts were asked to provide rationale and suggestions for adaptation through the use of an open text box. Items that reached a level of 75% consensus for either inclusion or adaptation were retained [ 25 , 26 ]. New items were categorized and added, and a revised survey was presented to the panel of experts in round 2. Panel members were again asked to review items, including new items, to determine if it should be: included, excluded, or adapted for the survey. Round 2 of the modified e-Delphi approach also included an item prioritization activity, where participants were then asked to rate the importance of each item, based on a 5-point Likert scale (low to high importance), which De Vaus [ 30 ] states is helpful for increasing the reliability of responses. Items that reached a 75% consensus on inclusion were then considered in relation to the importance it was given by the expert panel. Quantitative data were managed using SPSS (IBM Corp).

Phase 3. Face validity through cognitive interviews with nursing students

The goal of phase 3 was to obtain initial face validity of the proposed survey using a sample of nursing student informants. More specifically, student participants were asked to discuss how items were interpreted, to identify confusing wording or other problematic construction of items, and to provide feedback about the survey as a whole including readability and organization [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. The focus group was held online and audio recorded. A semi-structured interview guide was developed for this study that focused on clarity, meaning, order and wording of questions; emotions evoked by the questions; and overall survey cohesion and length was used to obtain data (see Supplementary Material 2  for the interview guide). A prompt to “think aloud” was used to limit interviewer-imposed bias and encourage participants to describe their thoughts and response to a given item as they reviewed survey items [ 27 ]. Where needed, verbal probes such as “could you expand on that” were used to encourage participants to expand on their responses [ 27 ]. Student participants’ feedback was collated verbatim and presented to the research team where potential survey modifications were negotiated and finalized among team members. Conventional content analysis [ 34 ] of focus group data was conducted to identify key themes that emerged through discussion with students. Themes were derived from the data by grouping common responses and then using those common responses to modify survey items.

Ten nursing faculty participated in the expert panel. Eight of the 10 faculty self-identified as female. No faculty panel members reported conscientious objector status and ninety percent reported general agreement with MAiD with one respondent who indicated their view as “unsure.” Six of the 10 faculty experts had 16 years of experience or more working as a nurse educator.

Five nursing students participated in the cognitive interview focus group. The duration of the focus group was 2.5 h. All participants identified that they were born in Canada, self-identified as female (one preferred not to say) and reported having received some instruction about MAiD as part of their nursing curriculum. See Tables  1 and 2 for the demographic descriptors of the study sample. Study results will be reported in accordance with the study phases. See Fig.  1 for an overview of the results from each phase.

Fig. 1  Overview of survey development findings

Phase 1: survey item generation

Review of the literature identified that no existing survey was available for use with nursing students in the Canadian context. However, an analysis of themes across qualitative and quantitative studies of physicians, medical students, nurses, and nursing students provided sufficient data to develop a preliminary set of items suitable for adaptation to a population of nursing students.

Four major themes and factors that influence knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about MAiD were evident from the literature: (i) endogenous or individual factors such as age, gender, personally held values, religion, religiosity, and/or spirituality [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ], (ii) experience with death and dying in personal and/or professional life [ 35 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], (iii) training including curricular instruction about clinical role, scope of practice, or the law [ 23 , 36 , 39 ], and (iv) exogenous or social factors such as the influence of key leaders, colleagues, friends and/or family, professional and licensure organizations, support within professional settings, and/or engagement in MAiD in an interdisciplinary team context [ 9 , 35 , 46 ].

Studies of nursing students also suggest overlap across these categories. For example, value for patient autonomy [ 23 ] and the moral complexity of decision-making [ 37 ] are important factors that contribute to attitudes about MAiD and may stem from a blend of personally held values coupled with curricular content, professional training and norms, and clinical exposure. For example, students report that participation in end of life care allows for personal growth, shifts in perception, and opportunities to build therapeutic relationships with their clients [ 44 , 47 , 48 ].

Preliminary items generated from the literature resulted in 56 questions from 11 published sources (See Table  3 ). These items were constructed across four main categories: (i) socio-demographic questions; (ii) end of life care questions; (iii) knowledge about MAiD; or (iv) comfort and willingness to participate in MAiD. Knowledge questions were refined to reflect current MAiD legislation, policies, and regulatory frameworks. Falconer [ 39 ] and Freeman [ 45 ] studies were foundational sources for item selection. Additionally, four case studies were written to reflect the most recent anticipated changes to MAiD legislation and all used the same open-ended core questions to address respondents’ perspectives about the patient’s right to make the decision, comfort in assisting a physician or NP to administer MAiD in that scenario, and hypothesized comfort about serving as a primary provider if qualified as an NP in future. Response options for the survey were also constructed during this stage and included: open text, categorical, yes/no , and Likert scales.

Phase 2: faculty expert panel review

Of the 56 items presented to the faculty panel, 54 questions reached 75% consensus. However, based upon the qualitative responses 9 items were removed largely because they were felt to be repetitive. Items that generated the most controversy were related to measuring religion and spirituality in the Canadian context, defining end of life care when there is no agreed upon time frames (e.g., last days, months, or years), and predicting willingness to be involved in a future events – thus predicting their future selves. Phase 2, round 1 resulted in an initial set of 47 items which were then presented back to the faculty panel in round 2.

Of the 47 initial questions presented to the panel in round 2, 45 reached a level of consensus of 75% or greater, and 34 of these questions reached a level of 100% consensus [ 27 ] of which all participants chose to include without any adaptations) For each question, level of importance was determined based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unimportant, 2 = somewhat unimportant, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat important, and 5 = very important). Figure  2 provides an overview of the level of importance assigned to each item.

Ranking level of importance for survey items

After round 2, a careful analysis of participant comments and level of importance was completed by the research team. While the main method of survey item development came from participants’ response to the first round of Delphi consensus ratings, level of importance was used to assist in the decision of whether to keep or modify questions that created controversy, or that rated lower in the include/exclude/adapt portion of the Delphi. Survey items that rated low in level of importance included questions about future roles, sex and gender, and religion/spirituality. After deliberation by the research committee, these questions were retained in the survey based upon the importance of these variables in the scientific literature.

Of the 47 questions remaining from Phase 2, round 2, four were revised. In addition, the two questions that did not meet the 75% cut off level for consensus were reviewed by the research team. The first question reviewed was What is your comfort level with providing a MAiD death in the future if you were a qualified NP ? Based on a review of participant comments, it was decided to retain this question for the cognitive interviews with students in the final phase of testing. The second question asked about impacts on respondents’ views of MAiD and was changed from one item with 4 subcategories into 4 separate items, resulting in a final total of 51 items for phase 3. The revised survey was then brought forward to the cognitive interviews with student participants in Phase 3. (see Supplementary Material 1 for a complete description of item modification during round 2).

Phase 3. Outcomes of cognitive interview focus group

Of the 51 items reviewed by student participants, 29 were identified as clear with little or no discussion. Participant comments for the remaining 22 questions were noted and verified against the audio recording. Following content analysis of the comments, four key themes emerged through the student discussion: unclear or ambiguous wording; difficult to answer questions; need for additional response options; and emotional response evoked by questions. An example of unclear or ambiguous wording was a request for clarity in the use of the word “sufficient” in the context of assessing an item that read “My nursing education has provided sufficient content about the nursing role in MAiD.” “Sufficient” was viewed as subjective and “laden with…complexity that distracted me from the question.” The group recommended rewording the item to read “My nursing education has provided enough content for me to care for a patient considering or requesting MAiD.”

An example of having difficulty answering questions related to limited knowledge related to terms used in the legislation such as such as safeguards , mature minor , eligibility criteria , and conscientious objection. Students were unclear about what these words meant relative to the legislation and indicated that this lack of clarity would hamper appropriate responses to the survey. To ensure that respondents are able to answer relevant questions, student participants recommended that the final survey include explanation of key terms such as mature minor and conscientious objection and an overview of current legislation.

Response options were also a point of discussion. Participants noted a lack of distinction between response options of unsure and unable to say . Additionally, scaling of attitudes was noted as important since perspectives about MAiD are dynamic and not dichotomous “agree or disagree” responses. Although the faculty expert panel recommended the integration of the demographic variables of religious and/or spiritual remain as a single item, the student group stated a preference to have religion and spirituality appear as separate items. The student focus group also took issue with separate items for the variables of sex and gender, specifically that non-binary respondents might feel othered or “outed” particularly when asked to identify their sex. These variables had been created based upon best practices in health research but students did not feel they were appropriate in this context [ 49 ]. Finally, students agreed with the faculty expert panel in terms of the complexity of projecting their future involvement as a Nurse Practitioner. One participant stated: “I certainly had to like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Now let me finish this degree first, please.” Another stated, “I'm still imagining myself, my future career as an RN.”

Finally, student participants acknowledged the array of emotions that some of the items produced for them. For example, one student described positive feelings when interacting with the survey. “Brought me a little bit of feeling of joy. Like it reminded me that this is the last piece of independence that people grab on to.” Another participant, described the freedom that the idea of an advance request gave her. “The advance request gives the most comfort for me, just with early onset Alzheimer’s and knowing what it can do.” But other participants described less positive feelings. For example, the mature minor case study yielded a comment: “This whole scenario just made my heart hurt with the idea of a child requesting that.”

Based on the data gathered from the cognitive interview focus group of nursing students, revisions were made to 11 closed-ended questions (see Table  4 ) and 3 items were excluded. In the four case studies, the open-ended question related to a respondents’ hypothesized actions in a future role as NP were removed. The final survey consists of 45 items including 4 case studies (see Supplementary Material 3 ).

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a survey that can be used to track the growth of knowledge about MAiD among nursing students over time, inform training programs about curricular needs, and evaluate attitudes and willingness to participate in MAiD at time-points during training or across nursing programs over time.

The faculty expert panel and student participants in the cognitive interview focus group identified a need to establish core knowledge of the terminology and legislative rules related to MAiD. For example, within the cognitive interview group of student participants, several acknowledged lack of clear understanding of specific terms such as “conscientious objector” and “safeguards.” Participants acknowledged discomfort with the uncertainty of not knowing and their inclination to look up these terms to assist with answering the questions. This survey can be administered to nursing or pre-nursing students at any phase of their training within a program or across training programs. However, in doing so it is important to acknowledge that their baseline knowledge of MAiD will vary. A response option of “not sure” is important and provides a means for respondents to convey uncertainty. If this survey is used to inform curricular needs, respondents should be given explicit instructions not to conduct online searches to inform their responses, but rather to provide an honest appraisal of their current knowledge and these instructions are included in the survey (see Supplementary Material 3 ).

Some provincial regulatory bodies have established core competencies for entry-level nurses that include MAiD. For example, the BC College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) requires “knowledge about ethical, legal, and regulatory implications of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) when providing nursing care.” (10 p. 6) However, across Canada curricular content and coverage related to end of life care and MAiD is variable [ 23 ]. Given the dynamic nature of the legislation that includes portions of the law that are embargoed until 2024, it is important to ensure that respondents are guided by current and accurate information. As the law changes, nursing curricula, and public attitudes continue to evolve, inclusion of core knowledge and content is essential and relevant for investigators to be able to interpret the portions of the survey focused on attitudes and beliefs about MAiD. Content knowledge portions of the survey may need to be modified over time as legislation and training change and to meet the specific purposes of the investigator.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, it is strongly recommended that surveys be conducted anonymously and that students be provided with an opportunity to discuss their responses to the survey. A majority of feedback from both the expert panel of faculty and from student participants related to the wording and inclusion of demographic variables, in particular religion, religiosity, gender identity, and sex assigned at birth. These and other demographic variables have the potential to be highly identifying in small samples. In any instance in which the survey could be expected to yield demographic group sizes less than 5, users should eliminate the demographic variables from the survey. For example, the profession of nursing is highly dominated by females with over 90% of nurses who identify as female [ 50 ]. Thus, a survey within a single class of students or even across classes in a single institution is likely to yield a small number of male respondents and/or respondents who report a difference between sex assigned at birth and gender identity. When variables that serve to identify respondents are included, respondents are less likely to complete or submit the survey, to obscure their responses so as not to be identifiable, or to be influenced by social desirability bias in their responses rather than to convey their attitudes accurately [ 51 ]. Further, small samples do not allow for conclusive analyses or interpretation of apparent group differences. Although these variables are often included in surveys, such demographics should be included only when anonymity can be sustained. In small and/or known samples, highly identifying variables should be omitted.

There are several limitations associated with the development of this survey. The expert panel was comprised of faculty who teach nursing students and are knowledgeable about MAiD and curricular content, however none identified as a conscientious objector to MAiD. Ideally, our expert panel would have included one or more conscientious objectors to MAiD to provide a broader perspective. Review by practitioners who participate in MAiD, those who are neutral or undecided, and practitioners who are conscientious objectors would ensure broad applicability of the survey. This study included one student cognitive interview focus group with 5 self-selected participants. All student participants had held discussions about end of life care with at least one patient, 4 of 5 participants had worked with a patient who requested MAiD, and one had been present for a MAiD death. It is not clear that these participants are representative of nursing students demographically or by experience with end of life care. It is possible that the students who elected to participate hold perspectives and reflections on patient care and MAiD that differ from students with little or no exposure to end of life care and/or MAiD. However, previous studies find that most nursing students have been involved with end of life care including meaningful discussions about patients’ preferences and care needs during their education [ 40 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 52 ]. Data collection with additional student focus groups with students early in their training and drawn from other training contexts would contribute to further validation of survey items.

Future studies should incorporate pilot testing with small sample of nursing students followed by a larger cross-program sample to allow evaluation of the psychometric properties of specific items and further refinement of the survey tool. Consistent with literature about the importance of leadership in the context of MAiD [ 12 , 53 , 54 ], a study of faculty knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward MAiD would provide context for understanding student perspectives within and across programs. Additional research is also needed to understand the timing and content coverage of MAiD across Canadian nurse training programs’ curricula.

The implementation of MAiD is complex and requires understanding of the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Within the field of nursing this includes clinical providers, educators, and students who will deliver clinical care. A survey to assess nursing students’ attitudes toward and willingness to participate in MAiD in the Canadian context is timely, due to the legislation enacted in 2016 and subsequent modifications to the law in 2021 with portions of the law to be enacted in 2027. Further development of this survey could be undertaken to allow for use in settings with practicing nurses or to allow longitudinal follow up with students as they enter practice. As the Canadian landscape changes, ongoing assessment of the perspectives and needs of health professionals and students in the health professions is needed to inform policy makers, leaders in practice, curricular needs, and to monitor changes in attitudes and practice patterns over time.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to small sample sizes, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives

Medical assistance in dying

Nurse practitioner

Registered nurse

University of British Columbia Okanagan

Nicol J, Tiedemann M. Legislative Summary: Bill C-14: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying). Available from: https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/PDF/42-1/c14-e.pdf .

Downie J, Scallion K. Foreseeably unclear. The meaning of the “reasonably foreseeable” criterion for access to medical assistance in dying in Canada. Dalhousie Law J. 2018;41(1):23–57.

Nicol J, Tiedeman M. Legislative summary of Bill C-7: an act to amend the criminal code (medical assistance in dying). Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2021.

Google Scholar  

Council of Canadian Academies. The state of knowledge on medical assistance in dying where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. Ottawa; 2018. Available from: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-State-of-Knowledge-on-Medical-Assistance-in-Dying-Where-a-Mental-Disorder-is-the-Sole-Underlying-Medical-Condition.pdf .

Council of Canadian Academies. The state of knowledge on advance requests for medical assistance in dying. Ottawa; 2018. Available from: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-State-of-Knowledge-on-Advance-Requests-for-Medical-Assistance-in-Dying.pdf .

Council of Canadian Academies. The state of knowledge on medical assistance in dying for mature minors. Ottawa; 2018. Available from: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-State-of-Knowledge-on-Medical-Assistance-in-Dying-for-Mature-Minors.pdf .

Health Canada. Third annual report on medical assistance in dying in Canada 2021. Ottawa; 2022. [cited 2023 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2021.html .

Banner D, Schiller CJ, Freeman S. Medical assistance in dying: a political issue for nurses and nursing in Canada. Nurs Philos. 2019;20(4): e12281.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pesut B, Thorne S, Stager ML, Schiller CJ, Penney C, Hoffman C, et al. Medical assistance in dying: a review of Canadian nursing regulatory documents. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2019;20(3):113–30.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia. Scope of practice for registered nurses [Internet]. Vancouver; 2018. Available from: https://www.bccnm.ca/Documents/standards_practice/rn/RN_ScopeofPractice.pdf .

Pesut B, Thorne S, Schiller C, Greig M, Roussel J, Tishelman C. Constructing good nursing practice for medical assistance in dying in Canada: an interpretive descriptive study. Global Qual Nurs Res. 2020;7:2333393620938686. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393620938686 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Pesut B, Thorne S, Schiller CJ, Greig M, Roussel J. The rocks and hard places of MAiD: a qualitative study of nursing practice in the context of legislated assisted death. BMC Nurs. 2020;19:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-0404-5 .

Pesut B, Greig M, Thorne S, Burgess M, Storch JL, Tishelman C, et al. Nursing and euthanasia: a narrative review of the nursing ethics literature. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(1):152–67.

Pesut B, Thorne S, Storch J, Chambaere K, Greig M, Burgess M. Riding an elephant: a qualitative study of nurses’ moral journeys in the context of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). Journal Clin Nurs. 2020;29(19–20):3870–81.

Lamb C, Babenko-Mould Y, Evans M, Wong CA, Kirkwood KW. Conscientious objection and nurses: results of an interpretive phenomenological study. Nurs Ethics. 2018;26(5):1337–49.

Wright DK, Chan LS, Fishman JR, Macdonald ME. “Reflection and soul searching:” Negotiating nursing identity at the fault lines of palliative care and medical assistance in dying. Social Sci & Med. 2021;289: 114366.

Beuthin R, Bruce A, Scaia M. Medical assistance in dying (MAiD): Canadian nurses’ experiences. Nurs Forum. 2018;54(4):511–20.

Bruce A, Beuthin R. Medically assisted dying in Canada: "Beautiful Death" is transforming nurses' experiences of suffering. The Canadian J Nurs Res | Revue Canadienne de Recherche en Sci Infirmieres. 2020;52(4):268–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562119856234 .

Canadian Nurses Association. Code of ethics for registered nurses. Ottawa; 2017. Available from: https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/nursing/regulated-nursing-in-canada/nursing-ethics .

Canadian Nurses Association. National nursing framework on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada. Ottawa: 2017. Available from: https://www.virtualhospice.ca/Assets/cna-national-nursing-framework-on-maidEng_20170216155827.pdf .

Pesut B, Thorne S, Greig M. Shades of gray: conscientious objection in medical assistance in dying. Nursing Inq. 2020;27(1): e12308.

Durojaiye A, Ryan R, Doody O. Student nurse education and preparation for palliative care: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286678 .

McMechan C, Bruce A, Beuthin R. Canadian nursing students’ experiences with medical assistance in dying | Les expériences d’étudiantes en sciences infirmières au regard de l’aide médicale à mourir. Qual Adv Nurs Educ - Avancées en Formation Infirmière. 2019;5(1). https://doi.org/10.17483/2368-6669.1179 .

Adler M, Ziglio E. Gazing into the oracle. The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1996

Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(2):205–12.

Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. 1st ed. City: Wiley; 2011.

Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2005. ISBN: 9780761928041

Lamb C, Evans M, Babenko-Mould Y, Wong CA, Kirkwood EW. Conscience, conscientious objection, and nursing: a concept analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2017;26(1):37–49.

Lamb C, Evans M, Babenko-Mould Y, Wong CA, Kirkwood K. Nurses’ use of conscientious objection and the implications of conscience. J Adv Nurs. 2018;75(3):594–602.

de Vaus D. Surveys in social research. 6th ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2014.

Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 .

Puchta C, Potter J. Focus group practice. 1st ed. London: Sage; 2004.

Book   Google Scholar  

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Adesina O, DeBellis A, Zannettino L. Third-year Australian nursing students’ attitudes, experiences, knowledge, and education concerning end-of-life care. Int J of Palliative Nurs. 2014;20(8):395–401.

Bator EX, Philpott B, Costa AP. This moral coil: a cross-sectional survey of Canadian medical student attitudes toward medical assistance in dying. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):58.

Beuthin R, Bruce A, Scaia M. Medical assistance in dying (MAiD): Canadian nurses’ experiences. Nurs Forum. 2018;53(4):511–20.

Brown J, Goodridge D, Thorpe L, Crizzle A. What is right for me, is not necessarily right for you: the endogenous factors influencing nonparticipation in medical assistance in dying. Qual Health Res. 2021;31(10):1786–1800.

Falconer J, Couture F, Demir KK, Lang M, Shefman Z, Woo M. Perceptions and intentions toward medical assistance in dying among Canadian medical students. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):22.

Green G, Reicher S, Herman M, Raspaolo A, Spero T, Blau A. Attitudes toward euthanasia—dual view: Nursing students and nurses. Death Stud. 2022;46(1):124–31.

Hosseinzadeh K, Rafiei H. Nursing student attitudes toward euthanasia: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(2):496–503.

Ozcelik H, Tekir O, Samancioglu S, Fadiloglu C, Ozkara E. Nursing students’ approaches toward euthanasia. Omega (Westport). 2014;69(1):93–103.

Canning SE, Drew C. Canadian nursing students’ understanding, and comfort levels related to medical assistance in dying. Qual Adv Nurs Educ - Avancées en Formation Infirmière. 2022;8(2). https://doi.org/10.17483/2368-6669.1326 .

Edo-Gual M, Tomás-Sábado J, Bardallo-Porras D, Monforte-Royo C. The impact of death and dying on nursing students: an explanatory model. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(23–24):3501–12.

Freeman LA, Pfaff KA, Kopchek L, Liebman J. Investigating palliative care nurse attitudes towards medical assistance in dying: an exploratory cross-sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(2):535–45.

Brown J, Goodridge D, Thorpe L, Crizzle A. “I am okay with it, but I am not going to do it:” the exogenous factors influencing non-participation in medical assistance in dying. Qual Health Res. 2021;31(12):2274–89.

Dimoula M, Kotronoulas G, Katsaragakis S, Christou M, Sgourou S, Patiraki E. Undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge about palliative care and attitudes towards end-of-life care: A three-cohort, cross-sectional survey. Nurs Educ Today. 2019;74:7–14.

Matchim Y, Raetong P. Thai nursing students’ experiences of caring for patients at the end of life: a phenomenological study. Int J Palliative Nurs. 2018;24(5):220–9.

Canadian Institute for Health Research. Sex and gender in health research [Internet]. Ottawa: CIHR; 2021 [cited 2023 Oct 23]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html .

Canadian Nurses’ Association. Nursing statistics. Ottawa: CNA; 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/nursing/regulated-nursing-in-canada/nursing-statistics .

Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant. 2013;47(4):2025–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 .

Ferri P, Di Lorenzo R, Stifani S, Morotti E, Vagnini M, Jiménez Herrera MF, et al. Nursing student attitudes toward dying patient care: a European multicenter cross-sectional study. Acta Bio Medica Atenei Parmensis. 2021;92(S2): e2021018.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Beuthin R, Bruce A. Medical assistance in dying (MAiD): Ten things leaders need to know. Nurs Leadership. 2018;31(4):74–81.

Thiele T, Dunsford J. Nurse leaders’ role in medical assistance in dying: a relational ethics approach. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(4):993–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the faculty and students who generously contributed their time to this work.

JS received a student traineeship through the Principal Research Chairs program at the University of British Columbia Okanagan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Human Services, Selkirk College, Castlegar, BC, Canada

Jocelyn Schroeder & Barbara Pesut

School of Nursing, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada

Barbara Pesut, Lise Olsen, Nelly D. Oelke & Helen Sharp

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JS made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and drafting and substantively revising the work. JS has approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. BP made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and drafting and substantively revising the work. BP has approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. LO made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and substantively revising the work. LO has approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. NDO made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; and substantively revising the work. NDO has approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. HS made substantial contributions to drafting and substantively revising the work. HS has approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Authors’ information

JS conducted this study as part of their graduate requirements in the School of Nursing, University of British Columbia Okanagan.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Pesut .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research was approved by the Selkirk College Research Ethics Board (REB) ID # 2021–011 and the University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board ID # H21-01181.

All participants provided written and informed consent through approved consent processes. Research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schroeder, J., Pesut, B., Olsen, L. et al. Developing a survey to measure nursing students’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, influences, and willingness to be involved in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD): a mixed method modified e-Delphi study. BMC Nurs 23 , 326 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01984-z

Download citation

Received : 24 October 2023

Accepted : 28 April 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01984-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

• Medical assistance in dying (MAiD)
• End of life care
• Student nurses
• Nursing education

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Identifying the practice patterns of optometrists in providing falls prevention management: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Si Ye Lee
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Khyber Alam
• ORCID record for Jason Charng
• ORCID record for Hamed Niyazmand
• ORCID record for Jingyi Chen
• ORCID record for Anne-Marie Hill
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Objective The objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the best available evidence for optometrists practice patterns in providing falls prevention management. Introduction Falls remain the main cause of injury related hospitalisation and mortality in Australia and worldwide, significantly affecting older adults. The increased risk of comorbidities, including visual impairment in this cohort is linked to a higher incidence of falls. Despite being primary eye care practitioners, community optometrists may not consistently integrate falls prevention strategies into their practice. Furthermore, the extent to which they adhere to evidence-based recommendations for falls management remains unclear. Inclusion criteria The review will include optometrists, in regions where optometry is a regulated profession, and report their understanding and practice patterns in delivering falls prevention management to older community dwelling adults. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. It is envisioned that most studies will be qualitative. Studies published in English and those published from 1980 onwards will be eligible for inclusion since published evidence for falls prevention began to increase sharply around this time. Methods The review will follow the JBI guidelines for mixed methods systematic reviews and will be developed and reported in accordance with PRISMA P guidelines. Databases that will be searched are Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete, and OVID MEDLINE. Grey literature will be searched through Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Science), Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations databases. Two reviewers will independently conduct all screening and critical appraisal. The reviewers will screen all articles titles and abstracts retrieved from the searches to determine potential eligibility. All full-text articles considered relevant will then be assessed for final eligibility for inclusion. The final included articles will be assessed for methodological rigour using the JBI SUMARI critical appraisal tools, subsequently, all relevant data will be extracted. Discrepancies at any stage of the procedures will be resolved through discussion and consensus with a third senior researcher. A convergent integrated approach to synthesising and integrating the quantitative and qualitative data will be followed. Review registration CRD42024539668 Keywords Accidental falls, Optometry, Practice Patterns, Aged

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Anne-Marie Hill is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Investigator (EL2) award (GNT1174179) and the Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation. Si Ye Lee is conducting this research with the support of an Australian Government Research Training Program Fees Offset scholarship and is a recipient of a Perth Eye Foundation scholarship through the University of Western Australia.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (627)
• Anesthesia (163)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2373)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (206)
• Emergency Medicine (379)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (836)
• Epidemiology (11770)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (702)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3738)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (633)
• Health Informatics (2395)
• Health Policy (933)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (896)
• Hematology (341)
• HIV/AIDS (782)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13310)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (767)
• Medical Education (365)
• Medical Ethics (104)
• Nephrology (398)
• Neurology (3502)
• Nursing (198)
• Nutrition (525)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (674)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (664)
• Oncology (1823)
• Ophthalmology (537)
• Orthopedics (219)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (232)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (446)
• Pediatrics (1033)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (420)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3175)
• Public and Global Health (6139)
• Radiology and Imaging (1280)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (747)
• Respiratory Medicine (826)
• Rheumatology (379)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (372)
• Sports Medicine (323)
• Surgery (402)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (145)