literature review study example

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you....

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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 31 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.

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

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

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Sample Literature Review on Critical Thinking (Gwendolyn Reece, American University Library)
• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Standalone Literature Reviews

• Attitudes towards the Disability in Ireland
• Martin, A., O'Connor-Fenelon, M. and Lyons, R. (2010). Non-verbal communication between nurses and people with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Diabilities, 14(4), 303-314.

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

15 Literature Review Examples

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Examples

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

1. Narrative Review Examples

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

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

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

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

Example Study

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

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

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

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

Other Examples

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

2. Systematic Review Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Meta-analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Types of Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Drew (PhD)

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

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Parten’s 6 Stages of Play in Childhood, Explained!

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• My Library Account
• Articles, Books & More
• Course Reserves
• Site Search
• Advanced Search
• Sac State Library
• Research Guides
• Writing a Literature Review
• Literature Review Examples
• What is a Literature Review?
• Organizing Your Literature Review
• Managing your Citations
• Further Reading on Lit Reviews

Literature Review Samples

Click on the links below for examples of Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Writing a Literature Review
• Next: Organizing Your Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://csus.libguides.com/litreview

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

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

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

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

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

But wait – is this the right time?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

1: The Introduction Section

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

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

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

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

2: The Body Section

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

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

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

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3: Methodological

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

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

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

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

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

3: The Conclusion Section

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

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

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

Example: Thematically Structured Review

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

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

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

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

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

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

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, very helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Research guides

Writing a Literature Review

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

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

"Life and Times of Sigmund Freud"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dissertation & Thesis Guides
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing
• How to Write a Literature Review for Research: Guide, Structure & Template Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides

How to Write a Literature Review for Research: Guide, Structure & Template Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

A literature review is a critical analysis of published research on a particular topic. It involves reviewing and analyzing a range of sources, such as academic articles, books, and reports. Students conduct a literature review before writing a research paper or dissertation to gain an understanding of the existing knowledge and recognize areas for further exploration.

Evaluating scholarly works is a crucial aspect of academic work because it establishes the foundation for an inquiry and uncovers new information or gaps in studies. Thus, it is essential to develop and structure it correctly.  In this guide you will find:

• A detailed definition
• Elements of a good literary review
• How to do a literature review
• Examples of literature review template.

Read on to explore the structure and straightforward steps for assessing existing sources on your topic.  In case you are looking for a quick solution, consider giving our literature review services a try. 

What Is a Literature Review: Definition

Before delving further, let’s first define what is a literature review in research. As a researcher, you might need to objectively synthesize, explore, and evaluate existing studies conducted by others. A literature review helps you identify gaps or areas that require further investigation. It boils down to analyzing and making sense of a massive body of knowledge. It is crucial to be critical during the entire process as it is the most effective approach to engaging with texts. You need to objectively identify their strengths and weaknesses, and convey your positive or negative views.   In other words, literature reviews are about deducing specific sources and comparing relevant studies to find similarities and differences. This process may reveal new perspectives or offer a thorough outline for further developments in a specific field. It can also inform readers about the relevance and validity of existing documents to the statement of the problem . You conduct a lit review to get an overview of concepts surrounding your subject, keep up to date with trends in your field, and enhance your credibility. Besides, it offers a solid background for a research paper , thesis or dissertation .

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

A literature review must highlight your overall knowledge of a research subject and help you develop an argument, mostly by responding to a specific question. It is not just a summary of what you have read.  Commonly, the purpose of a literature review is to help you:

• Understand and convey the current state of literature on your research topic .
• Find adequate documents on your subject to form your perspective.
• Create a framework for your paper based on research goals.
• Identify gaps in studies and develop novel research questions .
• Select appropriate methods by locating tried and tested techniques.

Note that keeping all these points in mind is important to get the most from an evaluation process when conducting the review.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are various types of literature reviews, each with specific expectations in terms of depth, structure, length, and scope. Here are the main ones:

• Stand-alone literature review. This type involves a comprehensive analysis of prior research related to a specific question. Here, your task is to evaluate and compare existing studies, identify trends, and recognize gaps, weaknesses, and controversies in the field.
• Literature review for a journal article. In this case, the analysis of literature focuses on providing background information for an inquiry being conducted. It is usually placed in an introduction or combined with the discussion of results.
• Literature review assignment. Students may be assigned a selective project to familiarize themselves with a theme and studies in their field. The intention could also be to identify gaps in the current knowledge base to suggest new questions, develop a theoretical framework in research , or determine a suitable methodology for future exploration. This type deals with a small part of research on a subject and stands as a complete work.
• Research paper literature review. The main objective here is to facilitate scholars in gathering, condensing, synthesizing, and examining current research on a specific issue. This is particularly beneficial to academics who are investigating a new area of study or seeking guidance on topics that have not yet been thoroughly explored.
• Thesis or dissertation literature review. This is a separate chapter placed after the Ph.D. thesis introduction and before the dissertation methodology section. It helps the author understand what has already been studied and what gaps exist in the current knowledge. By analyzing the existing research, a researcher can identify opportunities for further investigation and ensure that their study is original and significant.

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

If the instructions for a task do not specify the required length of the literature review, there are some guidelines to consider. In general, it would be enough to have 20-25% of the total size of your work as an analysis part. Typically, the analysis section of the review should constitute around 20-25% of the total length of the work. However, several factors, such as the project purpose, intended audience, type, and scope, may affect how long a literature review is. For example, a dissertation usually requires an extensive literature evaluation section. The best assessments, however, are usually not less than 2 pages long.  If you are uncertain about the appropriate length, refer to the table below for guidance. Literature Review Length in Different Projects

Unlock your academic potential and save time by letting the experts handle your work! Buy literature review from our experts and receive a top-quality work tailored to your needs.

Features of a Good Literature Review

Regardless of your work’s nature, composing a good literature review is a laborious process that many students rightfully find challenging. This is because you may need to go through numerous studies and identify gaps, recognize frameworks, cite sources, and ensure coherence. Therefore, to develop a decent piece it is essential to consider the characteristics described below. The best work:

• Is more than just a list of relevant studies: you should critically examine others’ ideas and assess how they are presented.
• Considers a variety of reliable and applicable sources: a scientific literature review should demonstrate that you are familiar with relevant readings on your topic. Thus, ensure you have covered important, broad, latest, and pertinent texts. Such an approach enhances the depth of your evaluation and highlights various viewpoints.
• Demonstrates an awareness of values and theories underpinning the work: in the first place, you must understand why exactly you are conducting the evaluation. If you don’t know the purpose and function of the process, you will not write effectively.
• Relates papers to each other by comparing and contrasting them: a literature review in research moves past simple descriptions of what others have written. Rather, it entails connecting, finding differences and similarities, and interpreting concepts.
• Offers personal reactions and opinions to manuscripts: after comparing, contrasting, and critiquing others’ works, you should present your own interpretation and analysis.
• Showcases research gaps that your study will deal with and help address.
• Applies appropriate linking/transition words such as “similarly”, “however”, “also”, “contend”, “conclude”, “argue”, and “assert”: this helps you group together related notions, highlight contrasting views, and introduce others’ opinions or texts while remaining objective throughout the analysis.

What to Include in a Literature Review?

At this point, you understand the definitions, purpose, and features of a literature review. Now you need to present information effectively. Like in any other formal paper, your work must have a basic structure comprising an introduction, body, and conclusion.  But what does it look like? The layout goes beyond these sections because you must also consider how your themes and arguments will be organized.  Here is a detailed description of the three main parts of a literature review:

• Introduction Your first section should be brief, direct, and focused. Explain the main themes or topics to be analyzed, the arguments you will present, and the underlying reasons for your claims.
• Body In this section, conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the selected sources and organize them using a specific approach, such as themes or topics. Make sure to present your arguments clearly, linking them to studies that support or contradict your assessment. Remember to include viewpoints that disagree with your position to strengthen your evaluation. Cite the works of various authors you are critically analyzing, and limit the use of direct quotes. Instead, paraphrase and include references.
• Conclusion Summarize your literature review by highlighting the conclusions drawn from your analysis. You can restate gaps in knowledge, explain how your study will address them, and recommend future research needed on the topic.

Look at the example of the literature review template below to learn more.

Read more: Literature Review Outline

How to Structure a Literature Review?

Once you are ready to begin writing a literature review, it is necessary to think about how you will organize information. This helps avoid the risk of your work turning into a loose sequence of summaries instead of a logical and integrated analysis.  A literature review structure should be chosen based on the style used in your body section. Here are the major approaches you can use:

• Thematic This approach involves organizing your analysis around themes, topics, or issues. It is particularly useful when focusing on a single overarching subject and enables you to highlight critical debates within sub-themes.
• Chronological Literature reviews using this format organize studies based on when they were published, typically moving from older to newer works to explore the topic's development over time. It is important to analyze sources by considering any debates and turning points that influenced the subject and offer your interpretation.
• Methodological This design focuses on the methods other researchers used. A review of literature using this layout considers the perspective from which a particular theme was examined or the procedures used to answer a specific question. It may use qualitative, quantitative, or other strategies within these two broad techniques.
• Theoretical A theoretical approach involves a systematic and critical examination of existing theories, models, and frameworks related to the research topic or question. This approach helps to establish the context, identify gaps, and provide a foundation for your own research.

How to Write a Literature Review?

If you are still wondering how to write a literature review for a research paper, thesis or dissertation, this guideline will help you get started. While you have learned about important elements such as structuring and organization, you may still need guidance on how to establish your foundation for creating your review.  The following sections provide easy-to-understand explanations on how to write a lit review. Below are 7 steps you must follow to develop a decent paper.

1. Select a Topic and Narrow It Down

As you begin reviewing literature, it is vital to get your focus correct. Depending on your field of study, the selected topic must be:

• Relevant and important Explore a crucial concern in your field so that people will be interested in your work and you will have sufficient material to base your project on.
• Interesting This is essential because learning how to write a good literature review starts with being inquisitive since you can’t investigate something that doesn’t arouse your curiosity.
• Well defined this helps you include only relevant publications to make your paper helpful.
• Narrow Your theme must be specific yet researched enough to allow for an in-depth analysis. Broad issues usually necessitate a large number of studies, which will be impossible to explore meaningfully.

2. Search for Pertinent Literature

After having selected a topic for your research literature review, you need to search for studies. As you do this research, you'll want to take note of the keywords and phrases that appear frequently in the articles. These keywords can be used to create a list of search terms that you'll use to find additional articles on your topic. To ensure that your search terms are effective, you should try to identify the most important keywords and phrases related to your topic. These might be the names of key researchers, conceptual frameworks , theories, or techniques related to your topic. Consider the headings that the documents have been tagged with and words occurring in abstracts and titles. You can then organize your phrases into blocks based on the main ideas. Once you have identified the relevant keywords for your scientific literature review, it's time to search for articles. To do this, you'll need to choose at least two credible databases to search for good articles. Popular options include:

• Google Scholar

But there may be other databases that are more appropriate for your specific topic. When searching across different databases, it's important to use a uniform search strategy. This means combining your search terms using " OR " and " AND " to create a block of related terms. You can then type this block into the basic search box or use the advanced search feature, enclosing the terms in parentheses. This makes it easier to find specific articles. For example, consider these keywords:

Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, adolescents, young adults, and management. The search term block would be “(Crohn’s disease OR ulcerative colitis) AND (young adults OR adolescent) AND management”.

Since the generated results may contain irrelevant or unreliable sources, ensure that you select only dependable ones. This is a key skill to develop when conducting a literature review because it allows you to choose the best articles to support your arguments.

3. Analyze and Choose Relevant Sources

After completing your search for articles and selecting databases, it's time to review the sources and choose which ones to include in your lit review. Focus on studies that are relevant to your topic and meet any other inclusion criteria.  To determine whether an article is relevant to your project, you'll need to read it carefully and grasp the arguments presented. Take notes as you read, recording interesting facts, main points, and any thoughts you have about the article. This will help you remember which author made which arguments, your impressions of the article, and any relationships you identified between different sources. As you read, try to answer these questions:

• What is the main argument of the article?
• How does the author support their argument?
• What is the research question or objective of the study?
• What research methods were used, and were they appropriate for the research question?
• What were the main findings or results of the study?
• Were the results statistically significant, and were the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are there any limitations or weaknesses to the study that should be considered?
• Are the authors qualified to conduct this research?
• Are there any conflicts of interest or biases that may affect the study's findings?
• Is the article well-written and easy to understand?
• Are the sources cited in the article reliable and relevant to the topic?

Remember that you can only start to write your literature review after going through all your manuscripts. Therefore, creating a rough draft is essential as this gives you a general idea of the volume of available material available. While conducting a literature review, you must examine the quality of all sources critically. This typically entails using a checklist or table to evaluate aspects such as methods, results, and presentation. An example of a template to assess sources for a literature review is provided below. It contains questions and criteria that assist in locating bias, errors, or flaws. Template for Literature Evaluation

4. Group the Sources by Categories

To write a review of literature, you need to sort your sources. After reading and evaluating your articles, you should have a general idea of the main achievements, major debates, themes, trends, and outstanding issues/questions. The next step is to organize your sources into logical categories. Good research literature reviews are systematic and consistent. You may choose to arrange your sources by topic, research methodology , geographic location, or other relevant criteria. It's also helpful to use subheadings within each category to further organize your sources. As you group your sources, be sure to consider how they relate to one another and to the overall research question or topic. You may find that certain sources address multiple themes or issues. In this case you'll need to decide which category is the most appropriate for each source. Remember that the purpose of organizing your sources is to provide a clear and coherent structure for your literature review. By grouping your sources into logical categories, you make it easier for your readers to follow your arguments and understand the connections between different sources. Here is an example of how to group sources by categories.

5. Build Connection Between Your Ideas and the Literature

To complete this step of the literature review, you need to connect your research, arguments, or ideas to the texts you've gathered. Begin by using your research question to identify connections between your sources and insights into your findings. Match your key concepts with the central points in each article to establish associations between topics. Be aware that you may see differences or contradictions between readings. To ensure that you're ready to write your literature review, use your key concepts as headings in your notes to easily locate articles that address specific themes. Observe and make explicit the relationships that emerge between your arguments and the manuscripts. These connections will be useful when structuring your work and selecting the papers to include in your project.

6. Write a Literature Review

At this point, you can start a literature review because you have already synthesized relevant works in your mind and recorded the details. With that information in mind, it is time to begin composing the actual analysis and thoroughly creating each of the components of a literature review.  Initiate the process by highlighting your topic and your overall argument or view.  Just like any other academic essay , your project must be well-structured and contain an introduction, main part, and conclusion. Consider the following explanations on how to write a literature review for a dissertation, thesis, or research paper.

Literature Review Introduction

The introduction section should provide the necessary background information and clarify the purpose of your analysis.  Begin by broadly announcing the topic and providing contextual details of major concepts and terms, such as what is already known about the subject and how the field has developed. Next, provide specific and relevant information about the issue and explain why it is important or why readers should engage with your work. Finally, describe the organization, scope, and aim or highlight the key points that will be discussed. Look at the following example to see how you can write an introduction for a literature review. Literature Review Introduction Example

The concentration of carbon emissions has been increasing throughout the years. The amount was 290 ppm before the industrial revolution but rose to 450 ppm afterward (Block, 2019, Wbeltz, 2020). These changes will affect the global climate significantly by influencing mean temperatures and precipitation levels. In turn, this will put pressure on global agricultural production and affect the growth speed, crop quality, and yield of staple foods like wheat (Wbeltz, 2020). Since over 90% of people worldwide depend on this crop, it must survive any climate changes. Thus, the purpose of this review is to evaluate how carbon emissions will affect global wheat production and identify any mitigation measures. The paper will explore wheat growth, yield, and quality in the face of elevated carbon levels.

Lit Review Body

The body section of your literature review is where you analyze relevant studies related to your topic. It is essential to organize your analysis coherently and logically.  Identify important sub-topics and structuring them to support your arguments. Using subheadings under major themes can help to order and focus your work effectively.  While writing the body of your literature review, you should critically examine texts.  This involves recognizing gaps, points of agreement or disagreement, and key subjects.  You can structure this section chronologically, thematically, theoretically, or methodologically, depending on your research question and the nature of your sources. Remember to use reliable and accurate references to support your arguments. Consider this example: Example of a Literature Review Paper Body Section

Various studies show that elevated carbon emissions result in increased crop growth. Adams (2018) attributes this to improved photosynthesis in leaves when exposed to high carbon levels in the air. Other studies argue that carbon enriches crops, accelerates and amplifies their productivity, and causes improved growth (Hog, 2020). In an experimental study, Li (2019) compared crop growth under high carbon conditions and found that a 500 ppm level enhances growth by nearly 8%. Nevertheless, high carbon levels also result in other effects such as high temperatures (Daley, 2019). In turn, this leads to short growth periods or cycles. Thus, an increase in temperature while accelerating the time for growth adversely affects crop quality (Adams, 2020).

Literature Review Conclusion

The concluding section of a literature review should show how you addressed the topic or achieved your purpose. You should then mention the major arguments you examined before identifying their implications in the broader field. Remember to recommend any applicable future research. Also, keep in mind these things when writing your literature review conclusion:

• Avoid in-text citations.
• Do not include new information.
• Highlight main ideas raised in the body paragraphs.
• Give your general view of the studies and explain your conclusions and underlying reasons.

Here is a sample literature review conclusion. Literature Review Conclusion Example

The review aimed to explore the effect of elevated carbon levels on global wheat production. Assessments of effects on the crop’s growth, yield, and quality were conducted to understand how changes in climate due to increasing carbon emissions will affect global agriculture. Findings demonstrate a definite impact of these changes on the aforementioned aspects. In particular, elevated carbon levels lead to enhanced growth, shorter growth cycle, and low and poor quality yields. It is suggested that future studies should further explore the role of other factors such as soil health and fertilizer use in explaining these effects because modern agricultural techniques are considered to harm soil quality.

7. Proofread and Revise Your Review of Literature

Once you are done with reviewing your literature, give yourself some time off and then come back to edit it. Attend to its narrative and flow by ensuring that all parts fit together and transition smoothly from one paragraph to another. Improve any poor connections, revise to enhance clarity, or re-write sentences to eradicate construction mistakes. You can then give your scientific literature review to a colleague or friend, who is not an expert in the field, and ask their opinion about the message of your overall paper. Also, seek responses from your supervisor if possible. Use any feedback you get to better your project further. At this point, you understand how to do a lit review. Additional tips are provided below.

Literature Review Format

Besides following the aforementioned steps, you must also consider how to format a literature review. Be sure to check with your institution or target journal about style guidelines and the specific rules of your work’s layout.  Each style has instructions regarding the major sections, in-text citations, and a literature reference page.  For example, an APA paper format is based on an “author-date” approach, in which the author’s name and publication year are cited inside the document. A reference list is included on your paper’s last page. APA literature review format is dominant in the sciences, psychology, and education fields.  In contrast, an MLA format paper follows a “researcher-page number” style accompanied by works cited page, which is common in the humanities.  A Chicago style paper requires footnotes or endnotes with a bibliography section for all sources. It is mostly used in fine arts, history, and business disciplines.

Literature Review Examples

At this point, you are ready to start writing your review. Before proceeding, it is advisable to consider an example of literature review in a research paper, thesis or dissertation in your field. Thoroughly read the samples you find to get familiar with aspects such as organization, argument presentation, and referencing sources correctly. This is an effective way of learning ways of framing and structuring your work. Additionally, going through how to write a literature review example helps you understand what is expected in this task. Also, when reading these samples, pay attention to the academic language used. Look at the following free examples: Literature review example (APA 7th Edition)

Literature review for research paper example

Thesis/dissertation literature review example

Tips on Writing a Literature Review in Research

Now that you have a well-rounded idea about how to write a literature review, read the recommendation described here as they remind you of essential points. Before proceeding, remember that you should include sources that are associated with your work directly. This helps you avoid frustrating and distracting readers or making them lose sight of your purpose. Also, once you start writing your review, stick to the previously created outline and keep these tips in mind:

• Analyze Do not just list studies, rather, examine them critically to find similarities, differences, relationships, or contradictions.
• Time management Take your time to select a topic, gather literature, evaluate, read, and write. The last part should take about half of your time, while the remainder is for the other tasks.
• Revise Anticipate revising countless times before delivering a final version.
• Presentation A literature review in a research paper, thesis or dissertation must be specific and provide concrete examples. For example, rather than “this” use “this result”. First-person references should be avoided because they signal unsupported arguments. Everything written should have a reason. Also, use short paragraphs as they are easier to read. Additionally, structure your work with headings, subheadings, and subsections to make it flow.
• Paraphrase Avoid relying too much on quoting directly from sources or one researcher. Rather, paraphrase and compare authors between themselves and with your ideas.
• References Give credit to every outside idea or language by citing their work in your paper.

Literature Review Checklist

Now that you are through with composing your literature review, it is essential to be sure that your work is ready for delivery or publication. Therefore, you must take your time and reflect on the following questions to ensure that every section is covered thoroughly. Consider this final checklist:

Final Thoughts on Writing a Scientific Literature Review

We have provided you with all the necessary information on how to write a review of literature. Follow our step-by-step guide to identify the right keywords, evaluate sources, and select credible and relevant articles. Make sure to structure your writing clearly and logically using the key components of a literature review that we have outlined for you.  To help you further, we have included examples of literature reviews for you to check. With these simplified requirements, you are ready to start practicing and creating your own literature reviews. Remember, practice is essential to mastering this type of writing, so keep it up!

If you are looking for some quick solution, we got you covered! Go to StudyCrumb and ask our professional writers for help. Just leave a ‘ write my paper ’ notice along with requirements and get high-quality work that will bring you an A.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

• checkbox I stated the reason for conducting my project and outlined its scope.
• checkbox I chose relevant and credible studies.
• checkbox I have identified recent trends.
• checkbox I have logically presented a review of literature in my research paper or dissertation.
• checkbox I organized my information based on themes/issues/methods/theories.
• checkbox I have located gaps in research and literature.
• checkbox I displayed how details supporting a topic relate to its significance.
• checkbox I wrote my literature review critically.
• checkbox I have demonstrated instances when findings contradicted each other or were inconclusive.
• checkbox I explored designs, theories, questions, models, and hypotheses.
• checkbox I highlighted each source’s importance to my theme.
• checkbox I have included an introduction, body, and conclusion.
• checkbox I have checked for grammatical issues.

FAQ About Literature Reviews

1. what is a literature review in a research paper.

The literature review of a research paper is a type of academic essay that analyzes and evaluates previous or existing studies on a topic. It aims to survey readings, synthesize, and digest the obtained information. It also critically explores the data by identifying gaps in knowledge, demonstrating limitations in manuscripts, examining contradictions, and determining areas for additional research. The final piece is presented logically.

2. Where does a literature review go in a research paper?

A literature review generally comes after an introduction and before the methodology chapter of dissertations. Here, it is used to analyze relevant scholarship about a topic, ground your research paper in a specific field, and inform your data collection methods and analysis procedures.

3. How to start a literature review?

Start a literature review by describing the background of what you will analyze in your body paragraphs. There is no need to be comprehensive here. Rather, show that you clearly understand your paper’s scope. In particular, begin by conveying the established ideas and knowledge on the subject being explored to your audience.

4. What is the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography?

The main difference between the two is that literature reviews focus on providing an overview and analysis of existing research on a particular theme. They aim to identify the strengths and weaknesses of arguments and draw conclusions. In contrast, the purpose of an annotated bibliography is to collect sources for a specific project and offer summaries of what they are about.

5. What is the importance of a literature review?

A literature review is important because:

• It establishes a rapport with your readers They will trust you because you have examined and analyzed facts appropriately.
• Helps researchers deliver original work The entire process of conducting the assessment assists you to evade repeating something done by someone else.
• It improves your research focus Synthesizing and analyzing studies can guide and shape your investigation in new directions by providing novel insights and views on a theme.

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a crucial section in research that examines existing studies and publications related to a specific topic. It summarizes and synthesizes previous findings, identifies gaps, and provides context for the current research. RRL ensures the research is grounded in established knowledge, guiding the direction and focus of new studies.

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a detailed analysis of existing research relevant to a specific topic. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes previous studies to identify trends, gaps, and conflicts in the literature. RRL provides a foundation for new research, ensuring it builds on established knowledge and addresses existing gaps.

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a critical part of any research paper or thesis . It provides an overview of existing research on your topic and helps to establish the context for your study. Here is a typical format for an RRL:

1. Introduction

• Purpose : Explain the purpose of the review and its importance to your research.
• Scope : Define the scope of the literature reviewed, including the time frame, types of sources, and key themes.

2. Theoretical Framework

• Concepts and Theories : Present the main theories and concepts that underpin your research.
• Relevance : Explain how these theories relate to your study.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

• Sub-theme 1 : Summarize key studies, including methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Sub-theme 2 : Continue summarizing studies, focusing on different aspects or variables.
• Sub-theme 3 : Include any additional relevant studies.

4. Methodological Review

• Approaches : Discuss the various methodologies used in the reviewed studies.
• Strengths and Weaknesses : Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies.
• Gaps : Identify gaps in the existing research that your study aims to address.

5. Synthesis and Critique

• Integration : Integrate findings from the reviewed studies to show the current state of knowledge.
• Critique : Critically evaluate the literature, discussing inconsistencies, limitations, and areas for further research.

6. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Research Gap : Clearly state the research gap your study will address.
• Contribution : Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

7. References

• Citation Style : List all the sources cited in your literature review in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Review of Related Literature (RRL) 1. Introduction This review examines research on social media’s impact on mental health, focusing on anxiety and depression across various demographics over the past ten years. 2. Theoretical Framework Anchored in Social Comparison Theory and Uses and Gratifications Theory, this review explores how individuals’ social media interactions affect their mental health. 3. Review of Empirical Studies Adolescents’ Mental Health Instagram & Body Image : Smith & Johnson (2017) found Instagram use linked to body image issues and lower self-esteem among 500 high school students. Facebook & Anxiety : Brown & Green (2016) showed Facebook use correlated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal study of 300 students. Young Adults’ Mental Health Twitter & Stress : Davis & Lee (2018) reported higher stress levels among heavy Twitter users in a survey of 400 university students. LinkedIn & Self-Esteem : Miller & White (2019) found LinkedIn use positively influenced professional self-esteem in 200 young professionals. Adult Mental Health General Social Media Use : Thompson & Evans (2020) found moderate social media use associated with better mental health outcomes, while excessive use correlated with higher anxiety and depression in 1,000 adults. 4. Methodological Review Studies used cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal designs, and mixed methods. Cross-sectional surveys provided large data sets but couldn’t infer causation. Longitudinal studies offered insights into long-term effects but were resource-intensive. Mixed methods enriched data through qualitative insights but required careful integration. 5. Synthesis and Critique The literature shows a complex relationship between social media and mental health, with platform-specific and demographic-specific effects. However, reliance on self-reported data introduces bias, and many cross-sectional studies limit causal inference. More longitudinal and experimental research is needed. 6. Conclusion Current research offers insights into social media’s mental health impact but leaves gaps, particularly regarding long-term effects and causation. This study aims to address these gaps through comprehensive longitudinal analysis. 7. References Brown, A., & Green, K. (2016). Facebook Use and Anxiety Among High School Students . Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 257-264. Davis, R., & Lee, S. (2018). Twitter and Psychological Stress: A Study of University Students . Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 120-135. Miller, P., & White, H. (2019). LinkedIn and Its Effect on Professional Self-Esteem . Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 78-90. Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2017). The Impact of Instagram on Teen Body Image . Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(5), 555-560. Thompson, M., & Evans, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Mental Health in Adults . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 201-208.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

Review of related literature in research, review of related literature in research paper, review of related literature qualitative research.

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

• Impact of E-learning on Student Performance
• Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Workplace
• Green Building and Energy Efficiency
• Impact of Technology on Healthcare Delivery
• Effects of Nutrition on Cognitive Development in Children
• Impact of Employee Training Programs on Productivity
• Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Impact of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Effects of Mobile Learning on Student Engagement
• Effects of Urban Green Spaces on Mental Health

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) serves several critical purposes in research:

• Establishing Context : It situates your research within the broader field, showing how your study relates to existing work.
• Identifying Gaps : It highlights gaps, inconsistencies, and areas needing further exploration in current knowledge, providing a clear rationale for your study.
• Avoiding Duplication : By reviewing what has already been done, it helps ensure your research is original and not a repetition of existing studies.
• Building on Existing Knowledge : It allows you to build on the findings of previous research, using established theories and methodologies to inform your work.
• Theoretical Foundation : It provides a theoretical basis for your research, grounding it in existing concepts and theories.
• Methodological Insights : It offers insights into the methods and approaches used in similar studies, helping you choose the most appropriate methods for your research.
• Establishing Credibility : It demonstrates your familiarity with the field, showing that you are well-informed and have a solid foundation for your research.
• Supporting Arguments : It provides evidence and support for your research questions, hypotheses, and objectives, strengthening the overall argument of your study.

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Writing a Review of Related Literature (RRL) involves several key steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Determine the Scope : Decide on the breadth of the literature you will review, including specific themes, time frame, and types of sources.
• Set Objectives : Clearly define the purpose of the review. What do you aim to achieve? Identify gaps, establish context, or build on existing knowledge.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

• Identify Keywords : Use keywords and phrases related to your research topic.
• Use Databases : Search academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc., for relevant articles, books, and papers.
• Select Sources : Choose sources that are credible, recent, and relevant to your research.

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

• Read Abstracts and Summaries : Quickly determine the relevance of each source.
• Assess Quality : Consider the methodology, credibility of the authors, and publication source.
• Select Key Studies : Choose studies that are most relevant to your research questions and objectives.

4. Organize the Literature

• Thematic Organization : Group studies by themes or topics.
• Chronological Organization : Arrange studies in the order they were published to show the development of ideas over time.
• Methodological Organization : Categorize studies by the methods they used.

5. Write the Review

• State the purpose and scope of the review.
• Explain the importance of the topic.
• Theoretical Framework : Present and discuss the main theories and concepts.
• Summarize key studies, including their methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Organize by themes or other chosen organizational methods.
• Methodological Review : Discuss the various methodologies used, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
• Synthesis and Critique : Integrate findings, critically evaluate the literature, and identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the research gaps your study will address.
• State how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

6. Cite the Sources

• Use Appropriate Citation Style : Follow the required citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• List References : Provide a complete list of all sources cited in your review.

What is an RRL?

An RRL summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic to identify gaps and guide future studies.

Why is RRL important?

It provides context, highlights gaps, and ensures new research builds on existing knowledge.

How do you write an RRL?

Organize by themes, summarize studies, evaluate methodologies, identify gaps, and conclude with relevance to current research.

What sources are used in RRL?

Peer-reviewed journals, books, conference papers, and credible online resources.

How long should an RRL be?

Length varies; typically 10-20% of the total research paper.

What are common RRL mistakes?

Lack of organization, insufficient synthesis, over-reliance on outdated sources, and failure to identify gaps.

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

Primarily scholarly, but reputable non-scholarly sources can be included for context.

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

RRL synthesizes and analyzes the literature, while a bibliography lists sources.

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

Yes, it identifies gaps and trends that shape the focus and methodology of new research.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis or hepatitis B in Asia: Perspectives of pregnant women, their relatives and health care providers

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Contributed equally to this work with: Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Faith Miller, Naomi Saville

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

• Lucie Sabin, 
• Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, 
• Faith Miller, 
• Naomi Saville

• Published: May 31, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Despite improvements, the prevalence of HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B remains high in Asia. These sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can be transmitted from infected mothers to their children. Antenatal screening and treatment are effective interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT), but coverage of antenatal screening remains low. Understanding factors influencing antenatal screening is essential to increase its uptake and design effective interventions. This systematic literature review aims to investigate barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B in Asia.

We conducted a systematic review by searching Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO), Scopus, Global Index Medicus and Web of Science for published articles between January 2000 and June 2023, and screening abstracts and full articles. Eligible studies include peer-reviewed journal articles of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies that explored factors influencing the use of antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis or hepatitis B in Asia. We extracted key information including study characteristics, sample, aim, identified barriers and facilitators to screening. We conducted a narrative synthesis to summarise the findings and presented barriers and facilitators following Andersen’s conceptual model.

The literature search revealed 23 articles suitable for inclusion, 19 used quantitative methods, 3 qualitative and one mixed method. We found only three studies on syphilis screening and one on hepatitis B. The analysis demonstrates that antenatal screening for HIV in Asia is influenced by many barriers and facilitators including (1) predisposing characteristics of pregnant women (age, education level, knowledge) (2) enabling factors (wealth, place of residence, husband support, health facilities characteristics, health workers support and training) (3) need factors of pregnant women (risk perception, perceived benefits of screening).

Knowledge of identified barriers to antenatal screening may support implementation of appropriate interventions to prevent MTCT and help countries achieve Sustainable Development Goals’ targets for HIV and STIs.

Citation: Sabin L, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Miller F, Saville N (2024) A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis or hepatitis B in Asia: Perspectives of pregnant women, their relatives and health care providers. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0300581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581

Editor: Stephen Michael Graham, University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

Received: February 2, 2023; Accepted: February 29, 2024; Published: May 31, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Sabin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), syphilis and hepatitis B are sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that, if left undiagnosed and untreated, can lead to serious complications and death. Despite improvements in the last decade, their prevalence remains high in Asia [ 1 , 2 ]. In 2017, 5.2 million people were living with HIV in the Asia Pacific region [ 3 ] and 123,000 people died from HIV-related causes in 2021 [ 4 ]. The regional prevalence of HIV was 0.2% [ 4 ]. In 2012, an estimated 1.8 million women were infected with syphilis in the South-East Asia region [ 5 ] and 39 million people with hepatitis B with a prevalence of 2.0% [ 6 ].

These STIs can be transmitted from infected mothers to their children during pregnancy and childbirth, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. The rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Asia and the Pacific is relatively high, at 17%, among the estimated 61,000 women living with HIV who gave birth in the region in 2017 [ 3 ] and 1.3 million pregnant women are at risk of transmitting HBV to their newborns each year [ 7 ]. The global number of adverse pregnancy events attributable to maternal syphilis infection was estimated to be 52,307 in the South-East Asia Region and 13,472 in the Western Pacific Region [ 8 ].

Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT), also called vertical transmission, can be prevented with simple and effective interventions, including antenatal screening and treatment, prevention of male-to-female transmission during sexual intercourse, and improving community awareness. Antenatal screening is an essential tool to enable women to find out if they are infected and to take the necessary steps to access preventive treatment if they test positive in order to avoid MTCT [ 9 ]. Since 2010, an estimated 7,400 new HIV infections among children in the Asia Pacific region were averted because of interventions aimed at reducing the MTCT of HIV [ 3 ]. However, due to limited availability and access to these interventions [ 10 ], antenatal screening for STIs in Asia remains low [ 11 ]. Only three of the 17 reporting countries in the Asia-Pacific region met the global target of over 95% coverage for knowledge of HIV status among women receiving ANC in 2017 and six countries (Bangladesh, Timor-Leste, Papuz New Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Singapore) reported coverage below 40% [ 11 ]. Only thirteen countries currently out of 17 countries have a policy of screening for hepatitis B during pregnancy, and very little data on hepatitis B screening coverage is currently available [ 10 ]. Most Asian countries also have no data on syphilis screening for pregnant women. Of the 28 countries in Asia and Pacific regions (according to WHO definitions of regions) reporting antenatal screening coverage for syphilis between 2010 and 2017, four countries reported coverage between 20% and 49% (India, Myanmar, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea) and three reported coverage below 5% (Afghanistan, Indonesia, Solomon Islands) [ 11 ]. Yet unknowingly infected people can transmit infections to their sexual partners and infected women to their children through MTCT. This also prevents them from accessing timely treatment leading to long-term complications that generate significant costs for the health system. In addition, low uptake of STIs screening services can exacerbate existing health disparities, with vulnerable populations, such as marginalised communities or migrant populations, facing additional barriers to accessing screening services.

To guide a path towards triple elimination of MTCT of HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B in Asia and the Pacific, the WHO developed a regional framework [ 10 ]. This framework aims to eliminate these three infections in newborns and infants by 2030 in Asia. The key recommendations emphasise an integrated approach to triple elimination, recognising the interconnectedness of the three diseases and the potential for resource optimisation and highlights the importance of strengthening health systems to effectively deliver comprehensive services and achieve universal health coverage. The framework focuses on building capacity, improving laboratory and diagnostic services, ensuring a reliable supply chain for medicines and commodities, and improving reporting systems. It recognises the need for collaboration between different sectors beyond the health sector and the importance of sustainable financing mechanisms to support the implementation of elimination programmes. Meanwhile, it encourages the participation of women living with HIV, women affected by syphilis, and mothers with hepatitis B, men and communities in the design, implementation, and evaluation of programmes and policies.

Understanding barriers and facilitators influencing antenatal screening for STIs is essential to design effective screening interventions. The information will also be useful to help countries to achieve a key health target of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), i.e., “end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases by 2030”. A systematic review conducted by Blackstone et al. [ 12 ] investigated the barriers and facilitators to routine antenatal HIV screening in sub-Saharan Africa, using literature published between 2000 and 2015. They identified the fear of the screening results, perceived stigma towards HIV-positive people, fear of the partner’s reaction in case of a positive test result, and perceived partner disapproval of the test as barriers to antenatal HIV screening. A high level of education, good knowledge of MTCT and HIV, and partner involvement in antenatal care were favourable factors for screening. Health system and provider issues affected the acceptance of antenatal screening. Good patient-provider communication, counselling to improve knowledge of pregnant women of the benefits of screening through counselling, and the perception that HIV screening is mandatory were facilitators to screening.

Barriers are likely to change over time, as societies evolve, beliefs change, or targeted interventions are put in place. There is no literature review summarising the evidence on barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B in the Asian context. Factors affecting screening are likely to be different from those in the African context due to cultural and contextual differences. This hinders the development of targeted strategies and interventions to overcome barriers and improve the effectiveness of antenatal screening programmes. It also limits the application of the WHO framework towards triple elimination of MTCT of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B. Health care providers in Asia may also lack guidance on how to effectively implement and improve antenatal screening programmes for STIs. Barriers preventing vulnerable communities from accessing screening are not known, which may contribute to disparities in health outcomes, with potentially negative impacts on maternal and child health.

In order to fill this evidence gap, this review aimed to investigate the barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis, or hepatitis B for women in Asia. Its specific objectives were to identify available evidence and underline possible gaps in the research knowledge base surrounding this subject.

Methods and analysis

The review and its reporting comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist ( S1 Table ) and the protocol has been published on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023435483).

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases including Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO), Scopus, Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 2000 and June 2023. The first search was conducted on 13 December 2021 and repeated on 10 June 2023 by LS. The keyword search was divided into five main groups: “barriers or facilitators”, “antenatal screening”, “HIV or syphilis or hepatitis B”, and “Asian countries”. The finalised search terms were developed through a trial-and-error process for use on Scopus and adapted to the different databases. The full key words used are shown in S1 File .

We used forward and backward citation searching to capture resources either citing or being cited by the included literature and searched the websites of the WHO, the World Bank and UNAIDS for reports.

Inclusion criteria

The eligibility criteria for study inclusion were developed using the acronym SPlDER: S sample; P phenomenon of interest; D design; E evaluation; R research type [ 13 ] ( Table 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.t001

Study selection

Following the initial search, LS collated records and uploaded them into Rayyan [ 14 ] to facilitate screening. After removal of duplicates, two independent reviewers (LS and FM) screened titles and abstracts for relevance and assessed full text of potentially relevant article using the inclusion criteria. Those meeting inclusion criteria at full-text screen were included in our results. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer (NS) when needed.

Data extraction

We used a standard form to extract key information including study characteristics (author, year, country, urban/rural setting, diseases considered), study design, sample, aim, identified significant barriers and facilitators to screening (e.g., odds ratios at the 95% confidence interval, p-value < 0.05). We thematically analysed qualitative articles through an iterative process of reading and coding them using Andersen’s framework [ 15 ]. This theoretical framework widely used in literature reviews on healthcare utilisation [ 16 ] provides understanding of how individuals and environmental factors influence health behaviours. The framework categorises predictors of health service use as i) Predisposing characteristics including demographic factors, social structure, and health beliefs that influence health services use. ii) Enabling factors allowing the individual to seek health services if needed. iii) Need factors including perceived needs of healthcare services use.

Quality assessment

LS and FM assessed the quality of included studies using tools appropriate to the study design. The quality of the studies included was evaluated based on Von Elm et al’s [ 17 ] checklist for observational studies and O’Brien et al’s [ 18 ] checklist for qualitative studies. S2 and S3 Tables present the quality appraisal checklists for the considered studies. We scored each paper based on how many checklist items were met. Overall, papers that met over 75% of the checklist items were considered to be of high quality, those meeting 50% to 75% of the checklist were regarded as moderate quality, and those meeting less than 50% poor quality. Because the aim was to describe and synthesise a body of the literature and not determine an effect size, studies were not excluded based on quality.

Data analysis and presentation

Descriptive characteristics of research studies were presented in tables. A narrative synthesis (Popay et al. 2006) was conducted to summarize the findings of the included studies. We did not combine quantitative estimates because of the heterogeneity of approaches and findings. Themes and patterns related to factors influencing screening uptake were identified and analysed and the final set of barriers and facilitators categorised according to Andersen [ 15 ]’s conceptual model.

After the selection process, 23 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The PRISMA diagram provides an overview of the selection process ( Fig 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.g001

General study characteristics

Details about the articles included are presented in Table 2 . Most included studies were on HIV screening, one was on syphilis screening [ 19 ], one on HIV and syphilis [ 20 ] and one on HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B [ 21 ]. Eight out of the 23 studies used data collected after 2015 [ 20 , 22 – 28 ]. Six of the studies were conducted in Vietnam, five in India, three in Indonesia, two in Cambodia, and one each in Hong Kong, Mongolia, China, Afghanistan and Thailand. Nineteen of the studies (83%) used quantitative methods, three (15%) used qualitative methods, and one (2%) used mixed methods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.t002

In the four studies that used qualitative methods, pregnant women were interviewed as well as other individuals such as health providers, district managers, husbands, and mothers. Sample sizes in quantitative studies ranged from 114 to 122,351 pregnant women, most often recruited during ANC visits. The quantitative studies were all cross-sectional except one from Indonesia, which was longitudinal [ 25 ]. Most quantitative studies used logistic regression models to determine the association between potential barriers and the outcome of interest.

Overviews of the barriers and the facilitators identified

The barriers and facilitators identified in the included articles are presented based on the categories of the Andersen’s conceptual model ( Table 3 and Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.t003

Predisposing characteristics.

Several predisposing characteristics were reported as either barriers or facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV and syphilis. In three studies conducted in Vietnam and India, age was associated with antenatal screening of HIV [ 22 , 32 , 33 ]. Pharris et al. [ 32 ] found that younger Vietnamese women were more likely to be screened while Bharucha et al. [ 33 ] found the opposite result in India. Khuu et al. [ 22 ] identified being younger than 30 years old as a barrier to antenatal screening.

Low education status of pregnant women was a barrier to antenatal screening in three studies conducted in Vietnam [ 22 , 23 , 29 ] and one in India [ 28 ]. Similarly, one study conducted in Hong Kong [ 39 ] and one in India [ 36 ] identified higher education as a facilitator to antenatal screening. However, the level of education associated with a positive likelihood of being screened varied between studies. For example, Khuu et al. [ 22 ] showed that nine or more years of education was associated with more acceptance of screening in Vietnam, whereas Sarin et al. [ 36 ] showed that this was true at more than six years of education in rural India.

Pregnant women’s knowledge about HIV and PMTCT was associated with antenatal screening decisions. Lack of knowledge about HIV amongst pregnant women [ 28 , 34 , 36 , 38 ], about the MTCT services [ 34 ], and about the availability of HIV testing facilities [ 35 ] were identified as barriers to screening in four studies in India, one in Cambodia and one in Thailand. Similarly, three studies conducted in Cambodia, Hong Kong and China found that a better knowledge of HIV amongst pregnant women was associated with a higher screening uptake [ 37 , 39 , 41 ]. Moreover, Munkhuu et al. [ 19 ] found similar results for syphilis in their study conducted in Mongolia. Lack of knowledge about syphilis amongst pregnant women was associated with lower screening uptake. A study conducted in India [ 28 ] found that low exposure to mass media was associated with lower HIV screening uptake. Similarly in Hong Kong, Lee et al. [ 39 ] identified access to HIV information by means of posters, pamphlets, videos, and group talks as a facilitator to screening.

Enabling factors.

The role of enabling factors such as wealth, place of residence, husbands and health workers’ roles, social and cultural norms or screening cost has been discussed in several articles.

Low household wealth or socio-economic status was a barrier even in countries where antenatal screening was free of charge. Three studies conducted in Mongolia, Vietnam, and India found low socio-economic status as being a barrier to antenatal screening for HIV [ 19 , 23 , 28 ]. Pharris et al. [ 32 ] identified higher economic status as a facilitator to antenatal screening for HIV in Vietnam.

Various studies have shown that the place of residence was associated with antenatal screening for HIV [ 22 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33 ] and syphilis [ 19 ]. A study conducted in Vietnam [ 23 ] and another conducted in India [ 28 ] identified living in a rural area as a barrier to antenatal screening for HIV. Similarly, Wulandari et al. [ 25 ] and Pharris et al. [ 32 ] found that living in an urban area and a semi-urban area were facilitators to antenatal screening of HIV in Vietnam and Indonesia respectively. Proximity to the hospital is also a factor influencing antenatal screening uptake. Khuu et al. [ 22 ] and Nguyen, Christoffersen, and Rasch [ 30 ] found that living further away from the hospital (over 20km in the case of Khuu et al.) was a barrier to antenatal screening for HIV. Similar results were found by Munkhuu et al. [ 19 ] in Mongolia for the antenatal screening of syphilis. Meanwhile, Bharucha et al. [ 33 ] identified living closer to the hospital as a facilitator for antenatal screening of HIV in India.

Two studies conducted in Vietnam found a significant effect of occupation on the decision to be tested. For example, housewives, or labourers/farmers were less likely to be tested for HIV [ 22 , 29 ]. Kakimoto et al. [ 37 ] identified high partner education level as a facilitator to antenatal screening in Cambodia. Meanwhile, Chu, Vo [ 23 ] found a negative association between belonging to ethnic minorities and being tested during pregnancy.

Several articles identified that their husband play a key role in women’s decision to be screened. Fear of negative reactions from their husbands [ 34 ], husband’s disapproval [ 29 ] and lack of support [ 40 ], and beliefs that their husbands have a bad attitude towards HIV testing [ 27 ] were identified as barriers to screening in India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam respectively. Two studies conducted in Cambodia [ 37 , 38 ] found that the perceived need to obtain partner’s authorisation is a barrier to screening for HIV. Similar findings were found in Afghanistan by Todd et al. [ 21 ] for antenatal screening of syphilis and hepatitis B. Similarly, Sarin et al. [ 36 ] reported that having discussions with spouses about HIV in India encouraged women’s screening for HIV.

Various studies have shown that social and cultural factors were key barriers to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis or hepatitis B. Todd et al. [ 21 ] identified stigma toward infected people as a barrier to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B in Afghanistan. Similar results were found by Baker et al. [ 20 ] in Indonesia for the screening of HIV and syphilis, and Lubis et al. [ 24 ] and Rogers et al. [ 34 ] for the screening of HIV. This last article also identified the fear of negative reactions from parents and community as a barrier. Similarly, Li et al. [ 41 ] found that lower perception of social stigma was associated with higher screening uptake.

Time was also associated with antenatal screening decisions for HIV and syphilis. It was a barrier both from the supply and the demand side. Working pregnant women reported that limited opening hours of screening centres were a major health-facility related barrier to antenatal screening for HIV in Indonesia [ 24 ]. Limited time to inform women properly about HIV during pregnancy and antenatal screening [ 40 ] as well as limited time to perform screening for syphilis [ 19 ] were barriers to antenatal screening in Thailand and Mongolia. From the demand side, long travel time to access antenatal screening services was associated with lower HIV screening uptake in Thailand [ 40 ]. Similarly, lack of time was identified as a barrier to screening for HIV and syphilis in Indonesia by Baker et al. [ 20 ]. Meanwhile, Bharucha et al. [ 33 ] found that being offered testing too late in pregnancy as associated with lower screening uptake for HIV.

The type of screening provider was a factor associated with screening in various studies. Hạnh, Gammeltoft, and Rasch [ 31 ] showed that, in Vietnam, having the first antenatal check-up at a commune health station was a factor associated with an increased probability of being tested, compared with district and provincial health facilities. Similarly and in the same country, having received ANC only at a private clinic/hospital was found to be a barrier [ 22 ]. However, in India, Sarin et al. [ 36 ] found that seeking ANC at government district hospitals and private clinics, as opposed to community health centres not equipped with either HIV counselling or testing facilities, had a positive effect on the probability of receiving HIV screening. Similar results were found by Bharuch et al. [ 33 ] in India. Some facilities lack screening materials and this was associated with lower screening of syphilis in Mongolia [ 19 ] and lower screening of HIV and syphilis in Indonesia [ 20 ]. In addition, a study carried out in Indonesia [ 24 ] revealed that the lack of antenatal care and screening services in the same building was a barrier to HIV screening. In Cambodia, the lack of access to ANC services outside the capital city was a barrier to screening for HIV [ 38 ].

Healthcare workers play a key role in screening decisions. In Vietnam, Dinh, Detels and Nguyen [ 29 ] found that a poor perception of healthcare availability was negatively associated with screening for HIV. Fear that healthcare workers would become impatient with them or that their questions would not be considered important was a barrier in Thailand [ 40 ], and concern that healthcare workers were opposed to antenatal screening for syphilis impeded testing in Mongolia [ 19 ]. Similarly, Lee et al. [ 39 ] identified health worker recommending HIV testing as a facilitator of screening. A study conducted in Vietnam [ 32 ] identified never having received antenatal HIV counselling as a barrier to screening and another identified a language barrier between health workers and women as barriers [ 40 ]. High acceptance of screening for HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B was also a factor increasing screening uptake in Afghanistan [ 21 ]. Pakki et al. [ 26 ] and Lubis et al. [ 24 ] found that, in Indonesia, health worker training as well as reward and punishment system to motivate them was associated with higher antenatal HIV screening. This is consistent with findings reported in Indonesia for HIV and syphilis screening [ 20 ]. Todd et al. [ 21 ] found that provider perceptions of low infection rates and assumptions on a person’s likelihood of infection based on a healthy appearance were associated with lower screening uptake of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B in Afghanistan. Baker et al. [ 20 ] also identified shortage of laboratory personnel as a barrier to screening.

Costs of screening was also identified as factor influencing HIV and syphilis screening uptake. Tests being seen as expensive by pregnant women was identified as a barrier to HIV and syphilis screening in Indonesia [ 20 ]. Similarly, Crozier et al. [ 40 ] found that costs of screening and transportation represent barriers to screening of HIV and syphilis in Thailand.

At the national-level, enabling factors were identified by two studies in Mongolia and Indonesia [ 19 , 20 ]. Munkhuu et al. [ 19 ] identified the complexity of the syphilis testing service system as a barrier to antenatal screening. Similarly, Baker et al. [ 20 ] found that poor dissemination of national policy on screening, not seeing screening as a priority intervention, and funding consisting of multiple small-scale sources were barriers to HIV and syphilis screening in Indonesia.

Finally, Crozier, Chotiga et Pfeil [ 40 ] showed that having only one ANC check-up was associated with low screening uptake.

Need factors.

Few need factors were identified as barriers or facilitators in antenatal screening for HIV and syphilis. Four studies conducted in Hong Kong, Vietnam and Thailand found that low perceived risk of HIV was associated with low screening [ 29 , 32 , 39 , 40 ]. Similarly, Lee, Yang, and Kong [ 41 ] found that, in China, high perceived risk of HIV was associated with high screening. In a study investigating barriers and facilitators in the delivery of antenatal testing for anaemia, HIV, and syphilis, Baker et al. [ 20 ] identified perceived low prevalence of HIV and syphilis as barriers to antenatal screening in Indonesia. Two studies found that believing that HIV testing was not important during pregnancy was associated with a lower screening uptake in Indonesia and Vietnam [ 22 , 27 ]. Similar Lee et al. [ 39 ] identified the perception of the benefits of HIV screening as a factor facilitating it. Finally, Munkhuu et al. [ 19 ] found that women who previously reported STIs were less likely to be screened in Mongolia.

This study is the first to provide a narrative synthesis of the current literature on barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B in Asia. This systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies shows that there are research gaps into the factors influencing screening for syphilis and hepatitis B, with most of the studies reviewed focusing on HIV. This review therefore effectively allows conclusions to be drawn about HIV alone.

Antenatal screening for HIV in Asia is influenced by a range of factors including predisposing characteristics (age, education level, wealth, place of residence, knowledge about HIV), enabling factors (husband support, health facilities characteristics, health workers’ support and training) and need factors (risk perception, perceived benefits of screening). These factors are similar to those identified in a review conducted by Blackstone et al. [ 12 ] in sub-Saharan Africa. In our literature review, as in the sub-Saharan African context, being better-off and highly educated were identified as facilitators. In both contexts, pregnant women’s lack of knowledge about HIV appears to be a significant barrier to antenatal HIV screening. Our results suggest that antenatal screening could be improved by facilitating access to information for women, their husbands and health workers. Most studies have emphasised the importance of improving dissemination of information about HIV and HIV testing in order to improve uptake of antenatal screening. Unlike Blackstone et al.’s review of the literature in the sub-Saharan African context [ 12 ], our review did not identify fear of results as such as a barrier to testing, but more broadly fear of partner reactions and potential violence in the event of a positive result. We did not find that cultural gender norms to be barrier, such as "testing is a woman’s business", as found by Blackstone et al. [ 12 ]. However, women in this review mentioned the need to obtain a husband’s approval to undergo screening. In both African and Asian contexts, societal stigma towards HIV-positive people proved to be a major barrier to HIV testing. Our findings, and those of Blackstone et al. [ 12 ], suggest that antenatal screening could be improved by strengthening the health care system. Both reviews highlighted the role of healthcare and communication professionals in increasing antenatal screening rates. In the sub-Saharan African context the perception of screening being mandatory was a barrier to screening, but this did not emerge in our literature review.

Although the studies we reviewed were all conducted in Asia, they spanned very different contexts. It is reasonable to assume that the barriers to antenatal screening will differ between Hong Kong and India for instance. Guidelines about screening and adherence to guidelines differ between countries. A review of maternal health care policies in eight countries in the Western Pacific region [ 42 ] found that WHO recommendations on antenatal HIV screening were not included in antenatal care guidelines in two countries. In 2018, 37 countries in the Asia Pacific region promoted antiretroviral therapy for all pregnant and breastfeeding women living with HIV, but in six of these countries, the policy is being implemented in less than 50% of all maternal and child health sites [ 43 ]. Reported barriers in the Hong Kong study were mainly focused on the demand side [ 39 ], whereas the Mongolia study identified many supply-side barriers [ 19 ]. This highlights the need for qualitative studies in Asian contexts to investigate context-dependent factors that may be missed in quantitative studies.

As stigmatisation of people with STDs is one of the main factors preventing pregnant women from being screened, interventions should provide information and counselling to pregnant women and their husbands, tailored to low-literacy populations to help reduce stigma and increase uptake [ 36 , 38 , 39 ]. Raising awareness within communities of the importance of male partner involvement, the benefits of screening and adherence to treatment could increase demand for antenatal screening services. However, studies on awareness campaigns about HIV in Vietnam [ 44 ] and Thailand [ 45 ] showed that the stigma attached to social judgement is difficult to reduce. Various studies recommended the integration of HIV screening into community level ANC services [ 23 , 25 , 30 , 31 , 39 ] and the development of opt-out approaches for those who prefer not to test [ 29 , 35 ], as recommended in sub-Saharan Africa by Blackstone et al. [ 12 ]. We found that husbands play a key role in encouraging pregnant women to undergo screening. Interventions to improve husbands’ knowledge and involvement in maternal and newborn health had a positive impact on maternal health behaviour in Bangladesh [ 46 ] and Nepal [ 47 ]. To reduce social and financial barriers to antenatal screening, screening should be offered to pregnant women universally free of cost [ 32 , 39 ]. Currently, national budgets do not cover all the costs associated with antenatal screening in all Asian countries. In the 17 Asian countries for which data on the cost of screening pregnant women for HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B were available in 2017, HIV screening of pregnant women was free in all of these countries, syphilis screening in 14 countries and hepatitis B screening was free in eight countries [ 11 ]. Finally, the quality of services depends on the availability and capacity of healthcare workers. To reduce the persistence of inappropriate healthcare practices in pregnancy, interventions need to develop health worker training programmes on STIs and pregnancy screening. A successful initiative in Cambodia in decreasing risky sexual intercourse and improving the access to sexual and reproductive health care services has focused on training community health workers in sexual and reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child and adolescent health [ 48 ].

Adolescent pregnancy is still common in the region with 3.7 million births to adolescent girls aged 15–19 every year in Asia and the Pacific [ 49 ]. Pregnant adolescents are very vulnerable and are known to have poor outcomes for both mother and child [ 50 ]. This systematic review of the literature highlighted a lack of age-specific data, particularly in relation to adolescent pregnancy, and confirmed the need to fill this research gap. Similarly, a systematic literature review of interventions addressing health outcomes for pregnant adolescents in low- and middle-income countries highlighted the need to develop studies to design high-quality care and services for pregnant adolescents [ 51 ].

Several limitations to this study should be noted. Firstly, most studies sampled pregnant women through ANC services. However, women who have not sought ANC may face the greatest barriers to testing. Due to resource constraints, only articles in English were reviewed, which may limit access to the grey literature and studies published in other languages (especially Chinese). Finally, different studies were undertaken in different contexts and using different methods. This heterogeneity limits our ability to compare between studies. However, this systematic review follows a rigorous method of article selection and analysis. It complements existing literature reviews on barriers to antenatal screening, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa [ 12 , 52 ].

The main barriers to antenatal screening in this systematic review were stigmatisation of infected individuals, lack of involvement of husbands and healthcare system factors. To improve uptake of antenatal screening interventions to improve community and husband involvement, awareness campaigns with communities and health workers, and training of health workers on STI issues are needed. While countries vary in their contexts and implementation of international recommendations on integrated antenatal screening for STIs, in all settings the planning, implementation, reporting and monitoring of interventions to eliminate mother-to-child transmission require coordination between different health system stakeholders at national, regional and local levels to avoid gaps or duplication. Global, regional and national guidelines need to be harmonised to avoid gaps and duplication between disease-specific and maternal and child health programs and guidelines. Integration of services for different diseases should be prioritised where possible. However, studies to examine the barriers and facilitators to antenatal screening for syphilis and hepatitis B and to examine the behavioural determinants of antenatal screening in Asia are still needed.

Supporting information

S1 table. the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (prisma) checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.s001

S2 Table. Quality appraisal checklists of included qualitative studies based on O’Brien, Harris et al. (2014)’s checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.s002

S3 Table. Quality appraisal checklists of included quantitative studies based on Von Elm, Altman et al. (2007)’s checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.s003

S1 File. Query performed on Scopus on 10 June 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300581.s004

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. UNAIDS. AIDSinfo. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2018. Available: http://aidsinfo . unaids.org/
• 6. WHO. Global hepatitis report. Geneva. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA. 2017;3.
• 7. WHO. Expert Consultation on Triple Elimination of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Syphilis in the Western Pacific, Manila, Philippines, 20–21 February 2017: meeting report. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2017.
• 8. WHO. Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2018. World Health Organization; 2018.
• 43. UNAIDS. Global AIDS Monitoring (GAM) online reporting tool. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/ AIDS. 2018. Available: https://aidsreportingtool.unaids.org
• 44. Nyblade L, Hong KT, Anh N, Ogden J, Jain A, Stangl A, et al. Communities confront HIV stigma in Viet Nam: participatory interventions reduce HIV stigma in two provinces. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women. 2008.

• Open access
• Published: 27 May 2024

Developing a competency model for Chinese general practitioners: a mixed-methods study

• Xue Gong 1 ,
• Xu Zhang 2 ,
• Xinyan Zhang 3 ,
• Yixuan Li 4 ,
• Yang Zhang 5 &
• Xiaosong Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6892-8049 4  

Human Resources for Health volume  22 , Article number:  31 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

85 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The Chinese government has formulated a series of policies and strengthened training of general practitioners (GPs) to support their role as “gatekeepers” of residents’ health. This study aimed to explore the core competencies of Chinese GPs and develop a competency framework in line with China’s actual conditions, which can provide a more scientific basis for the education, training, and evaluation of GPs.

Literature analysis and behaviour event interviews were conducted to build the competency dictionary and the initial version of the competency model. Two rounds of Delphi were performed to gain consensus on the final model. The questionnaire survey was carried out in 10 provinces (municipalities, autonomous regions) of China, and GPs were invited to score the importance of each competency item. The total sample was randomly divided into two groups. One group was for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other was for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the scale’s reliability and validity.

The dictionary of general practitioners’ competency including 107 competency items was constructed. After two rounds of Delphi, a consensus was reached on 60 competencies in 6 domains. A total of 1917 valid questionnaires were obtained in the nationwide survey. The average importance score of all second-level indicators is 4.53 ± 0.45. The Cronbach’s α coefficient is 0.984. The results of the five factors extracted by EFA showing the 68.16% cumulative explained variance variation is considered to be consistent with the six dimensions obtained by Delphi after thorough discussion. The model fitness indexes obtained by CFA were acceptable (χ 2 /df = 4.909, CFI = 0.869, NFI = 0.841, RMSEA = 0.065). The values of the composite reliability (CR) of the six dimensions were all greater than 0.7 (0.943, 0.927, 0.937, 0.927, 0.943, 0.950), and the average of variance extracted (AVE) were all greater than 0.5 (0.562, 0.613, 0.649, 0.563, 0.626, 0.635). The results showed that the model has good reliability and validity.

A competency model for GPs suited to China has been developed, which may offer guidance for future training and medical licensing examinations of GPs.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Health is a permanent goal pursued by the people. China is the world’s most populous country, and the Chinese government has consistently promoted the high-quality development of medical and health services and has given top priority to improving people’s health. Primary health care has received considerable attention in China since launching a new round of healthcare reform in 2009. The role of primary health care is further emphasised by the “Healthy China 2030 Planning Outline” approved in 2016 [ 1 , 2 ]. General practitioners (GPs) are medical talents who have received a wide range of medical professional education and training and are often referred to as “health gatekeepers” [ 3 ]. As the leading providers of primary health care, sufficient and qualified GPs are critically important for primary health care to reach the goal of every citizen having equal access to affordable health care services. In 2011, the Chinese government formally launched its ambitious plan to establish a general practice system to reach at least two GPs per 10,000 population, a total of 300,000 GPs by 2020 [ 4 ]. To achieve this goal, the Chinese government has made many efforts. Government statistics show 2.9 GPs per 10,000 population in 2020 [ 5 ]. In 2018, the Chinese government announced a new plan of five GPs per 10,000 population, a net GP workforce of 700,000 GPs by 2030, an additional increase of 300,000 in a decade [ 6 ]. According to the survey results, less than 40% of GPs at the grassroots have bachelor’s degrees or higher degrees, and most GPs have not received standardised resident training [ 7 ]. Therefore, rapidly training more competent GPs has been regarded as an urgent problem [ 8 ]. Then, a fundamental issue that must be addressed is what kind of GPs are competent or what abilities a capable GP should have.

Since the early 2000s, medical education has transformed traditional education into competency-based education [ 9 ]. More and more health systems and medical schools worldwide have adopted competency-based medical education [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The first step to implementing competency-based medical education is to define the competencies physicians should have. Some developed countries have identified the necessary competencies to be a qualified GP or family physician. The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) designed a competency framework CanMEDS-Family Medicine and described the roles and competencies required during Canadian family physicians’ work [ 13 ]. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) offered the GP curriculum based on the General Medical Council’s (GMC) generic professional capabilities framework and proposed five areas of capability and 13 specific capabilities for general practice [ 14 ]. The WONCA Europe released the European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine 2023 edition, describing the core competencies required for GPs and family physicians [ 15 ]. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Family Medicine Milestones arranged the elements of physician competencies into levels, and Milestones 2.0 was effective on July 1st, 2020 [ 16 ]. The competencies GPs need to possess and the training modes of GPs vary from country to country as they are affected by local, political, social, and economic circumstances. However, so far, China has not yet established a national-level competency evaluation system for GPs that adapts to China’s national conditions. On January 18th, 2018, the National Health Commission of China released the file “National Physician Qualification Examination Development Plan 2018–2020” and put forward two main tasks: researching GPs’ competencies and formulating competency-oriented admittance standards and examination syllabus, respectively. Thus, a set of core competencies suitable for Chinese GPs is expected to be developed.

This study was conducted from January 2019 to August 2021. The general competency model for Chinese GPs was developed in three phases: building the competency dictionary, constructing the competency model, and validating the model. Figure  1 shows the technological flow of our research.

Methodological steps used in this study

Phase I: building the GPs’ competency dictionary

In the first phase, the methods of literature analysis and behaviour event interviews were used to collect the competency elements and construct the dictionary. The literature was mainly from policy documents, established competency models of GPs from other countries, and bibliography databases. The development direction and trend for GPs’ careers and the abilities required for GPs in China were clarified by interpreting the Chinese policy documents concerning GPs in detail. Mature competency models from other countries were obtained by searching their official websites. We collected the literature from five databases (PubMed, Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data) from 2000 to 2018. The search strategies in PubMed and Web of Science were as follows:

PubMed: (general practitioner[mesh] OR family physician[mesh]) AND (competency[tiab] OR competence[tiab] OR competencies[tiab] OR ability[tiab] OR abilities[tiab] OR capability[tiab] OR capabilities[tiab] OR capacity[tiab] OR capacities[tiab] OR skill OR skills).

Web of Science: TS = (general practitioner OR family physician OR family doctor) AND TS = (competency OR competence OR competencies).

Behaviour event interviews (BEIs) were conducted with 22 GPs from different regions of China who had engaged in general practice-related work for five or more years. Half of the GPs were assigned to the high-achievement group, and the other half were in the low-achievement group. High achievers were individuals who had been awarded the national honour or won the national prize in general practice by the end of June 2019. Low achievers were defined as individuals who had not received any national award.

The interviews were semi-structured. The first part is to obtain basic information about the interviewees, such as their routine work. The second part is to collect the most impressive and regretful events during their work and their feelings. The last question asks the interviewees to summarise the competencies they consider necessary for GPs. The interviews were kept under approximately 50 min long. After the interview, two research group members transcribed the recording word by word in a unified format in time. Then, they extracted the competency elements from the text according to the competency dictionary compiled in the previous step.

Phase II: establishing the competency model

In the second phase, the Delphi technique was adopted to revise the preliminary model and determine the final model. The selection of experts is the key to the successful implementation of Delphi. The experts in this study are required to meet the following conditions: (1) they have long engaged in general practice-related clinical, teaching, or administrative work and have a complete understanding of the development of general practice in China and other countries; (2) most of the experts are current or former members of the General Practice Branch of Chinese Medical Association or other national associations; (3) more experts from the Eastern region of China are selected due to the rapid development of general practice service; (4) they are willing to attend this research. We used email or WeChat to communicate with experts. The Delphi questionnaire was created based on the preliminary model. Experts were asked to rate the importance of competencies on a five-point Likert scale where 1 = “not important at all” and 5 = “very important”. The space was provided for experts to write their suggestions or opinions, such as adding new items. After the questionnaires were returned, we calculated the arithmetic mean, full score ratio, and coefficient variations (CV) of indicators based on expert scores and modified the indicators according to experts’ suggestions. The items with arithmetic mean ≥ 4.00, full score ratio ≥ 0.3, or CV ≤ 0.25 were considered more important and acceptable for entering the next steps in this research. Based on the results of the first round, the next round of consultation was conducted. This survey stopped until experts had consistent attitudes.

Phase III: validating the competency model

At this stage, a cross-sectional survey was conducted. We recruited Chinese GPs from different-grade medical establishments. All the participants gave written informed consent. They could withdraw from the study at any time and refuse to answer questions for any reason.

The sample size for reliability and validity evaluation was 5–10 times the number of items [ 17 , 18 ]. Considering some responses might be invalid, 20% of extra questionnaires were added. Thus, a minimum sample size of 660 was necessary for reliable results, as the preliminary instrument has 60 items.

The stratified and convenient sampling methods ensured the sample was representative. This survey was conducted in 10 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government) of China in the Northeast (Jilin, Liaoning), Eastern (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong), Central (Shanxi, Henan), and Western (Guizhou, Shanxi). The surveyors received training to ensure they understood the questionnaire well.

The sample was divided into two random subsamples to prove the factor validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by principal component analysis applied to the first half of the sample was used to explore the structure and extract common factors of the competency model. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity test were studied for the suitability of the sample. The selection of factors mainly depends on Kaiser’s rule that whether they had eigenvalues greater than one [ 19 ]. Items loaded above 0.35 to the factors were considered valid. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in the second half of the sample to test the accuracy of the composition of each dimension and the fitting degree between the model and the actual survey data obtained from the EFA [ 20 ]. Some indices were obtained for assessing the model fitting degree, such as Chi-square (χ 2 )/degrees of freedom (df), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and normed fit index (NFI). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for all common factors and dimensions to assess the scale’s internal consistency. The values of composite reliability (CR) and the average of variance extracted (AVE) were also calculated to test the convergent validity.

Data were input with Epidata software version 3.0 and analysed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0 for EFA and AMOS version 24.0 for CFA.

Analysis of literature and BEIs

In the first stage, with the search expression, 1493 articles from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, 677 from Wanfang Data, 1668 from PubMed, and 1752 from Web of Science. Twenty-two GPs participated in the interviews. Combined with the results of literature analysis and BEIs, a competency dictionary containing 107 items was finally built. Then, a preliminary competency model for Chinese GPs composed of 6 dimensions (first-level abilities) and 80 items (second-level abilities) was conducted after discussion. The six dimensions were: (a) basic medical services, (b) public health services, (c) information and management ability, (d) medical knowledge and lifelong learning, (e) interpersonal communication and teamwork, and (f) professionalism and personal characteristics.

Results of two rounds of Delphi

Two rounds of the Delphi consultation were carried out with 39 experts from general practice, health management, and medical education. They all had the senior professional title. Of the 39 experts, 37 had served or served in the official general practice associations.

A total of 42 questionnaires were sent out, 39 valid questionnaires were recovered, and the effective recovery rate was 92.86% in the first round of consultation. Questionnaires for the second round were distributed to experts who responded to the first round. Thirty-five valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective rate of 89.74%. The arithmetic means of 79 (91.86%) competency items were higher than 4, 84 (97.67%) items had a full score ratio higher than 0.30, and the CV of 78 (90.70%) items were lower than 0.25 in the first round. Only 4 (5.80%) items had arithmetic means lower than 4, 5 (7.25%) had a lower full score ratio than 0.3, and 63 (91.30%) had CVs lower than 0.25.

Competencies are defined as work-related knowledge, skills, traits, and motives. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, the competency model comprised six dimensions and 60 items (Table  1 ). Dimensions A to F were named basic medical services, basic public health services, information utilisation ability and management ability, medical knowledge and lifelong learning, interpersonal communication and teamwork, and professionalism, respectively.

Results of the reliability and validity of the scale

In total, 2126 questionnaires were gathered, and 1917 were considered valid (90.17%) in the third phase. The quantity meets the basic requirements for the required sample size. Among the effective respondents, 677 were males and 1240 were females. The demographic characteristics of the GPs participating in this survey are shown in Table  2 .

The values of the Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale were 0.984, 0.946 for Dimension A, 0.927 for Dimension B, 0.935 for Dimension C, 0.920 for Dimension D, 0.946 for Dimension E, and 0.955 for Dimension F, demonstrating strong internal consistency.

The results of the questionnaire survey show that the average importance score is 4.53 ± 0.45. The average score of each second-level indicator is above 4 (Table  1 ). According to the scale level, the importance level is “important”, indicating that the indicators were approved by the GPs participating in this survey. In overall ranking, the top three are “A_9 Identify the patients at acute, severe stages and refer them promptly”, “D_2 Master the clinical medical knowledge”, and “A_7 Be able to diagnose and treat common diseases in communities”. “D_6 Master one foreign language at least” and “D_10 Write and publish scientific research papers actively” ranked last.

EFA was performed with the first half of the sample ( N  = 979). The KMO value was 0.982, sufficient to indicate a strong relationship [ 21 ]. Bartlett’s sphericity test, χ 2  = 57,014.459, df = 1770, and p  < 0.001, showed that the data were suitable for EFA. The eigenvalues were set to be greater than 0.35 when EFA was performed. After principal component extraction, five factors with initial eigenvalues greater than one were obtained, accounting for 68.14% of the overall variances. According to the rotated component matrix results, the items in Dimension A were all concentrated in the second factor, and items in Dimension B were focused on the third factor. Items in Dimension C, except C_3 and C_7, were concentrated in the fourth factor. Four items (D_1、D_2、D_3、D_4) of Dimension D focus on the fifth factor, and five (D_5、D_6、D_8、D_9、D_10) in the fourth factor. Items in E and F were concentrated in the first factor (Table  3 ).

The CFA was done with the second half of the sample ( N  = 938). The result is shown in Table  4 , all within the range of acceptance or ideal, indicating that the results fit well with the 6-factor of the scale.

The CR of the six dimensions were 0.943, 0.927, 0.937, 0.927, 0.943, and 0.950, all greater than 0.7, and the AVE were 0.562, 0.613, 0.649, 0.563, 0.626, and 0.635, respectively, all greater than 0.5, showing the scale had good convergence validity [ 22 ].

In the twenty-first century, the third wave of medical education reform with competency as the core has been set off around the world, and the reform of training medical talents has been gradually deepened in China. The competency model is an essential reference for designing, implementing, and evaluating competency-based programmes [ 23 ]. Compared with some developed countries, China has no national-level competency models for general practitioners, and research in this area is still at the primary stage. For this reason, an available model of the competencies required for Chinese GPs was constructed in this study.

The choice of methods is of primal importance for constructing the competency model. Our study employed quantitative and qualitative methods, including literature analysis, BEIs, Delphi, and questionnaire surveys. These methods supplement and verify each other, ensuring the results’ reliability, accuracy, and comprehension [ 24 ]. Through literature analysis, competency items were extracted as the basis for the competency dictionary. BEIs are considered the most scientifically rigorous approach for identifying competencies and are commonly used in many fields for competency studies [ 25 ]. The front-line GPs’ perception of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required within the context of general practice had been explored by BEIs. The Delphi method is a structured and commonly used technique in health professions to collect and screen expert advice and develop a framework for competency [ 26 , 27 ]. The selection of the expert panel may limit the generalisability of the study. The Delphi panel usually consists of 15–30 experts [ 28 ]. A widely representative group of 39 Chinese and international medical experts involved in general practice participated in this study.

EFA and CFA were used to verify the model of competencies. The results of EFA that five common factors were extracted, accounting for 68.16% of the variances, differed from that of Delphi, in which six factors were obtained. On this issue, experts in the field of general practice and medical statistics in our group believed that the items under the four dimensions of basic medical services, basic public health services, information utilisation ability and management ability, medical knowledge, and lifelong learning mainly were the same as the results from Delphi. The items in the other two dimensions of interpersonal communication and teamwork, and professionalism are mixed into one group, and most of the items are the competencies hidden or beneath the surface, according to the Iceberg Model. Our group believed that the six-dimensional framework constructed by Delphi was more explicit than that of the five common factors and more helpful for comparing different models. The results obtained from CFA have reached their respective defined values, indicating this indicator system has good reliability and validity. The results of the importance score showed that the competency model was widely accepted by the GPs participating in this survey from ten Chinese provinces.

A competency model for Chinese GPs has been successfully built based on the abovementioned methods. The model is a multi-dimensional system comprising 60 competencies, structured into six dimensions: basic medical services, basic public health services, information utilisation ability and management ability, medical knowledge and lifelong learning, interpersonal communication and teamwork, and professionalism, respectively.

The first dimension was named basic medical services, on which 13 items were loaded. Although GPs who provide comprehensive and continuous healthcare at the grass-roots level are considered a new type of clinician, their primary and most important role is still that of clinicians [ 29 , 30 ]. GPs must master basic clinical skills such as collecting medical history and performing physical examinations. The second dimension consisted of 8 items, focusing on the capabilities of basic public health services. GPs are usually the first point of contact with the community and are critical to any public health crisis response [ 31 ]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs in China are at the epidemic’s frontline [ 32 ]. GPs play an important role in detecting, reporting, and treating suspected and infected patients early. Some experts proposed that medical colleges should incorporate public health thinking into the training of GPs and integrate public health ability into the core abilities of GPs.

The third dimension contained eight items, emphasising the ability of management and information utilisation. Information technology has infiltrated all areas of our lives, studies, and work, as well as the healthcare field [ 33 ]. Learning about information technology and developing the competencies of medical information retrieval and utilisation can help GPs better carry out clinical work and scientific research. GPs’ work involves the health management of individuals, families, and communities, so they also need specific management skills. The fourth dimension included ten items, concentrating on medical knowledge and lifelong learning. Sufficient preclinical and clinical medical knowledge is the foundation for providing medical and health services to patients and community residents. With the development of modern medical science, new knowledge and new technology emerge rapidly and continuously. All doctors, including GPs, should possess the ability of lifelong learning to keep up their knowledge and skill sets to deliver excellent patient care [ 34 ].

The fifth dimension, interpersonal communication and teamwork, comprised ten items. GPs must effectively communicate and cooperate with patients, their families, and other health professionals. It has reached a consensus among GPs that gaining the trust of residents, patients, and their families and establishing a long-term, stable, cooperative relationship with them is critical to the success of general practice. The sixth dimension is related to professionalism with 11 items. As an invisible feature in the Iceberg model, professionalism has a decisive impact on the competency of GPs. Because of the particularity of medical work, doctors not only need to possess excellent professional and technical skills, but also good professional ethics and literacy.

Comparing the model in our study with those from other countries, it is found that many of the domains and competencies are similar. Basic medical services, medical knowledge, lifelong learning, interpersonal communication, and teamwork are mentioned in the framework, such as the CanMEDS-FM, WONCA tree, and the Family Medicine Milestones with some different expressions. This may be due to the common nature of GPs worldwide, especially concerning the core competencies required of a qualified GP, irrespective of nationality. However, some differences exist between this Chinese GPs’ model and the others. In China, GPs are required to provide basic public health services. In contrast, public health physicians may carry out this work in the primary healthcare teams or by commercial operations in other countries. Lu et al. developed a competency model for GPs after standardised residency training in China [ 35 ]. The research ability was set as a primary indicator, which differed from our study.

The services provided by GPs vary from country to country. In China, GPs primarily work in community and township health centres, diagnosing and treating common diseases, managing chronic diseases, providing health education, and performing other related tasks. However, due to inadequate staffing and poor teamwork, GPs are also expected to undertake public health and management work. Therefore, GPs must possess basic medical and public health services abilities and other competencies outlined in our competency model. In recent years, some secondary and tertiary general hospitals in China have established departments of general practice to teach and train GPs. GPs in these hospitals require specific teaching and research abilities, and scientific research ability is considered a secondary-level item in this general competency model for all GPs.

There are some limitations of the study. During the national survey process, only GPs were investigated. A larger and broader pool of participants with various roles and experiences, such as patients and community residents, could be selected for further validation evidence. It is also important to highlight that the model is dynamic since the nature of any job role changes over time, given the society’s development and changes. Future research should involve re-assessment of the model over time based on such changes and the impact on the job role [ 36 ].

Our study constructed a general competency model for Chinese GPs that was validated to be reliable. The Chinese GPs’ competency framework includes six dimensions: (a) basic medical services, (b) basic public health services, (c) information utilisation ability and management ability, (d) medical knowledge and lifelong learning, (e) interpersonal communication and teamwork and (f) professionalism. This model is consistent with China’s current situation and will provide a good foundation for further training and evaluation of general practitioners in China.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education

Average of variance extracted

Behaviour event interviews

Confirmatory factor analysis

Comparative fit index

College of Family Physicians of Canada

Composite reliability

Coefficient variations

Exploratory factor analysis

General Medical Council

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

Normed fit index

The Royal College of General Practitioners

The root-mean-square error of approximation

Li X, Krumholz HM, Yip W, Cheng KK, Maeseneer JD, Meng Q, et al. Quality of primary health care in China: challenges and recommendations. Lancet. 2020;395(10239):1802–12.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li X, Lu J, Hu S, Cheng KK, Maeseneer JD, Meng Q, et al. The primary health-care system in China. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2584–94.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sato K, Michinobu R, Kusaba T. Mixed methods study protocol to examine perceptions of family medicine among long-term patients of a family medicine clinic in Japan. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9): e037113.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

China National Development and Reform Commission. Planning for the construction of grassroots medical talents with a focus on general practitioners. https://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2010-04/02/content_1572090.htm . Accessed 20 November 2023.

National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Statistical Bulletin on the Development of Health Care (2020). http://www.nhc.gov.cn/guihuaxxs/s10743/202107/af8a9c98453c4d9593e07895ae0493c8.shtml . Accessed 20 November 2023.

Chen Q, Lian S, Plegue MA, Fetters MD. First-year medical student attitudes about general practice in China: a comparison between Chinese and international students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:571–9.

Wu N, Cheng MY, Yan LN, Qian WY, Zhang GP. Training development report of GPs (2018). Chin General Pract. 2018;21(10):1135–42.

Google Scholar  

Zhu J, Ariana P. Provider perspectives on general practice in Henan, China: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2): e036240.

Guerrero APS, Beresin EV, Balon R, Brenner AM, Louie AK, Coverdale JH, et al. The competency movement in psychiatric education. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41(3):312–4.

Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58.

Lucey CR, Thibault GE, Ten Cate O. Competency-based, time-variable education in the health professions: crossroads. Acad Med. 2018;93:S1–5.

Meilianti S, Smith F, Bader L, Himawan R, Bates I. Competency-based education: developing an advanced competency framework for Indonesian pharmacists. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8: 769326.

Shaw E, Oandasan I, Fowler N. CanMEDS-FM 2017: A competency framework for family physicians across the continuum. Mississauga, ON: The College of Family Physicians of Canada. 2017.

Royal College of General Practitioners. GP curriculum: Being a general practitioner. https://www.rcgp.org.uk/mrcgp-exams/gp-curriculum/being-general-practitioner . Accessed 20 November 2023.

Wonca Europe. The European Definition of GP/FM. https://www.woncaeurope.org/page/definition-of-general-practice-family-medicine . Accessed 20 November 2023.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Family Medicine Milestones. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pdfs/milestones/familymedicinemilestones.pdf . Accessed 20 November 2023.

Bacchetti P, Leung JM. Sample size calculations in clinical research. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):1028–32.

Mei N, Chang L, Zhu Z, Dong M, Zhang M, Zeng L. Core competency scale for operating room nurses in China: scale development, reliability and validity evaluation. Nurs Open. 2022;9(6):2814–25.

Courtney MGR, Gordon M. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: using the SPSS R-Menu v20 to make more judicious estimations. Pract Assessment Res Eval. 2013;18(8):1–14.

Kamaruzzaman S, Ploubidis GB, Fletcher A, Ebrahim S. A reliable measure of frailty for a community dwelling older population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:123.

Leng J, Tao M, Huai J, Fan Z. Test of reliability and validity of impulsiveness scale among married Chinese. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022;15:903–12.

Harmoinen M, Niiranen V, Munnukka J, Suominen T. Reliability and validity of a further tested appreciative management scale. J Nurs Meas. 2021;29(1):66–79.

Liang JF, Hsu TF, Chen CY, Yang CW, Jean WH, Ou LS, et al. Developing a competency-based framework for resident-as-teacher. J Formos Med Assoc. 2022;121(10):1956–62.

Shi L, Fan L, Xiao H, Chen Z, Tong X, Liu M, et al. Constructing a general competency model for Chinese public health physicians: a qualitative and quantitative study. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(6):1184–91.

Getha-Taylor H. Identifying collaborative competencies. Rev Public Personnel Adm. 2008;28(2):103–19.

Kilroy DA, Mooney JS. Determination of required pharmacological knowledge for clinical practice in emergency medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(9):645–7.

Bion JF, Barrett H. Development of core competencies for an international training programme in intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(9):1371–83.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach. 2005;27(7):639–43.

Hays R, Gupta TS. Developing a general practice workforce for the future. Aust J Gen Pract. 2018;47(8):502–5.

Yang L, Cheng J. Analysis of inequality in the distribution of general practitioners in China: evidence from 2012 to 2018. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23: e59.

Sotomayor-Castillo C, Nahidi S, Li C, Hespe C, Burns PL, Shaban RZ. General practitioners’ knowledge, preparedness, and experiences of managing COVID-19 in Australia. Infect Dis Health. 2021;26(3):166–72.

Yin Y, Chu X, Han X, Cao Y, Di H, Zhang Y, et al. General practitioner trainees’ career perspectives after COVID-19: a qualitative study in China. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):18.

Park AJ, Maruther MK, Swerlick RA. Information technologies in health care delivery and policy: giant steps and missteps. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2019;38(1):E25–30.

McAdams CD, McNally MM. Continuing medical education and lifelong learning. Surg Clin North Am. 2021;101(4):703–15.

Wei Y, Wang F, Pan Z, Wang M, Jin G, Liu Y, et al. Development of a competency model for general practitioners after standardized residency training in China by a modified Delphi method. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):171.

Patterson F, Ferguson E, Lane P, Farrell K, Martlew J, Wells A. A competency model for general practice: implications for selection, training, and development. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(452):188–93.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all experts and general practitioners who participated in this study for their support and valuable opinions.

This study was financed by the China National Medical Examination Centre.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Library of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

Department of Science and Education, Chaoyang Central Hospital, Chaoyang, China

School of Public Health, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, China

Xinyan Zhang

Department of General Practice, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

Yixuan Li & Xiaosong Yu

Education Centre for Clinical Skills Practice of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YX conceived the study. GX, ZX, ZX, LY, and ZY conducted the investigation and collected the data. GX, ZX 2 , and ZY performed the statistical analysis. GX and YX drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaosong Yu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was granted by the China Medical University Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that 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.

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.

Gong, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, X. et al. Developing a competency model for Chinese general practitioners: a mixed-methods study. Hum Resour Health 22 , 31 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00912-1

Download citation

Received : 27 December 2023

Accepted : 16 May 2024

Published : 27 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00912-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• General practitioner

Human Resources for Health

ISSN: 1478-4491

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]